論不定期繼續性合同隨時終止制度

作為繼續性合同一般理論的一項特有制度，隨時終止權的制度根源在於不定期繼續性合同的永久束縛可能性的排除，是與以信賴基礎喪失為正當化理由的任意解除權完全不同的一套制度，在法學理論和立法條文上均應予以區分對待。現階段，從一時性給付義務視角認知繼續性合同的思維定式深刻地影響著立法者、司法者和解釋者，這不僅導致了對部分隨時終止權規範的解釋偏差，還導致司法實踐中法院大規模的法律誤用，並衍生出像返還義務訴訟時效這樣的虛假理論問題。在隨時終止權的體系化視角下，現行法呈現出“低水準重複”的特徵。在民法典編纂立法中應當貫徹“公因式”的提取，刪除各有名合同的大量重複和衝突規定，以具體化的終止期間取而代之。

As a unique system in the theory of continuous contract, the ordinary termination system, completely different from discretionary termination system that is justified with loss of trust, is based on the exclusion of the permanent bondage possibility of indefinite continuous contract. It should therefore be treated differently in legal theory and legislative provisions. In current legal system, the thinking pattern from the perspective of temporary obligations of payment still deeply dominates legislators, jurists and interpreters, which leads to not only the misunderstanding of some regulations on ordinary termination, but also large-scale misuse of law by courts in judicial practice. Moreover, , and it also derives false theoretical issues related to the limitation of return obligations. From the perspective of this system, the current law presents the characteristics of ''low-level repetition''. Therefore, in the codification of Civil Code, the right of ordinary termination and termination term should be generally stipulated in the general part of contract law. Meanwhile, a large number of repetition and conflict provisions should be deleted and replaced by the specific termination term.