走出“合同僵局”：以承租人的轉租權為重點

在定期租賃合同情形，如何回應無使用計劃的承租人的退出需求?在理論層面，無論是法律上允許承租人向第三人轉租（鬆動“鎖人”），還是法律上允許承租人付出特定代價解除合同（鬆動“鎖時間”），都能達到走出合同僵局的目標。但在現實層面，鬆動“鎖時間”的解除方案有對出租人損害賠償不充分、誘發新的租賃僵局、惡化承租人處境的重大缺陷。因此，鬆動“鎖人”的轉租方案才是妥當選擇。我國法應充分考慮租賃合同特性，以合理轉租規則為默認規則，將轉租作為無使用計劃的承租人的常規退出通道。而一旦選擇轉租作為租賃僵局的解決方案，則租賃僵局不再構成“合同僵局—違約方解除權”議題的重要例證。

In the case of fixed-term lease contracts, how should we respond to a lessees’needs to exit a lease when they no longer have any need of it? Theoretically, whether the law allows the lessee to sublet to a third party (loosening the“person-lock”), or the law allows the lessee to pay a specific price to terminate the contract (loosening the“term-lock”), can achieve the goal of releasing the leased property and improving the situation of both parties to the lease. However, at the practical level, loosening the“term-lock”causes an inadequate remedy for damages in side of lessors; induces a new lease deadlock and worsens the lessee’s situation. Instead, a proposed subletting option that loosens the“person-lock”is the better option. Chinese law should fully consider a reasonable sublet rule for lessees who no longer need to rent a property. If we adopt a default rule to allow a lessee to sublet the property to another subletter, then the issue of terminating the fixed-term contract early by the breaching party will no longer be the important problem that it has previously been.