契約不履行責任體系中履行請求權之界限──比較CISG、PICC、PECL和DCFR之規範

The Boundary of Specific Performance under Non-performance System - An Approach of the CISG, the PICC, the PECL and the DCFR

契約不履行救濟路徑之走向上，大陸法是以履行請求權為基調，損害賠償請求權則為例外；而英美法系則是以損害賠償為原則，強制履行則僅於損害賠償方式不足以賠償時，方能透過衡平法院之審酌，例外性地採取強制履行以資救濟。國際契約法文件之立法者針對基於國際化和統一化之需求，巧妙地將這兩條線交織在一起，並融合和彙整出一個兼容大陸法系和英美法系之均衡性立法作品，亦即是引履行請求權為契約不履行之原則性救濟制度，並亦擷取英美法系中對於強制履行請求權之分界事由。本文則以CISG、PICC、PECL和DCFR之規範為素材，剖析與比對出一個具有現代性與統一性之履行請求權之框架，並亦提出各該規範內容間所存有之差異，尤其是敘明不可抗力免責事由與履行請求權間之關係，以清晰描繪出一個妥適性之履行請求權界線。

As far as the way of remedy of non-performance is concerned, in civil law it is based on specific performance, and damage as exception. But in other hand, in common law it awards damages in principle, and only if damages could not adequately compensate the plaintiff for his/her loss, then equity court may grant specific performance as an alternative to awarding damages. In accordance with the demand for internationalization and globalization, the legislators of international uniform contract law instruments cleverly combine such two ways together, and blend them into a well-balanced masterpiece integrating civil law and common law, that is, they take specific performance as remedy of non-performance and also adopt the boundary of specific performance which is set in common law. In order to clearly draw an adequate boundary of specific performance, this article will base on the regulations in CISG, PICC, PECL and DCFR to analyze and organize a modern and uniform framework of specific performance, and compare the differences between them, especially clarify the relationship between force majeure exception and specific performance.