The Legitimacy and Scope of Application of Continuing Performance of Appointment Contracts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202514308

Author(s)

Yixuan Zhang*

Affiliation(s)

School of Law, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

From the perspective of content determination, the continued performance of an appointment contract has its legitimacy, which is supported by three main reasons: compliance with the principle of good faith and trustworthiness, irreplaceability, and unsuitability for performance as it does not belong to the subject matter of the debt. In terms of the scope of application for the continued performance of the reservation contract, from the perspective of objective feasibility, based on the content determination theory, typological analysis is adopted to classify the reservation contract into low-level reservation, obstacle reservation, and complete reservation according to the different determinacy of the content. It is further divided into objective obstacle reservation and subjective obstacle reservation based on the different reasons for the obstacles. Analyze the scope of application of appointment contracts under different types of appointment contracts. Among them, low-level reservations and subjective barrier reservations are not applicable for continued performance, while objective barrier reservations and complete reservations are applicable for continued performance.

Keywords

Appointment Contract, Continued Performance, Legitimacy, Scope of Application

References

[1] Wang Zejian. Principles of Debt Law. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2013:170. [2] Liu Guixiang, Wu Guangrong. The thinking mode in the legal application of the Contract Code of the Civil Code - centered on the interpretation of the General Principles of the Contract Code. Jurist, 2024 (1): 57-73+192. [3] Zhu Guangxin. Appointment Contract and Its Breach Liability. Social Science Research, 2024 (1): 19-29. [4] Lu Qing. Analysis of Article 2 of the Judicial Interpretation on Sales Contracts. Jurist, 2013, (03): 113-127+179. [5] Ye Changfu. On Value Judgment and Selection in Compulsory Actual Performance of Contracts. Modern Law, 2015, (02): 154-155. [6] Cui Jianyuan. Contract Law. Beijing: Law Press, 2021:34. [7] Han Shiyuan. General Theory of Contract Law. Beijing: Law Press, 2018: 769-775. [8] Ran Keping, Li Zhiyuan. Systematic Explanation of the Validity of Appointment Contracts and Breach Relief: Centered on Articles 7 and 8 of the Interpretation of the General Principles of Contract Compilation. Journal of the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 2025, 45 (02): 87. [9] Huang Shaokun. On the Responsibility Form of Compulsory Performance as a Reservation Default. Journal of Gansu University of Political Science and Law, 2019, (06): 54-64. [10] Lu Qing. Analysis of Article 2 of the Judicial Interpretation on Sales Contracts. Jurist, 2013, (03): 113-127+179. [11] Wang Lizhi. Disputes and Responses to Breach of Contract Liability in Reservation Contracts: An Analysis Based on the Dynamic Contracting Perspective. Finance and Economics Law, 2021, (05): 108-124.