摘要
在德国法、美国法和CISG上,物的检验期间和不适约的通知期间是明确区分的,检验的时间要求是不迟延或者有合理机会;通知的时间要求是不迟延或者合理期间内。CISG上合同保证期间的功能是代替两年的期间,发挥最长通知时间范围的作用。而我国法上,检验期间一方面吸收了通知期间,另一方面又发挥着最长时间范围的作用,在效果上十分严苛;我国的质量保证期干预而非等于最长时间范围,其与检验期间存在"时间范围双重干涉"的问题。对于《合同法》第158条第一款的检验期间和157条的检验期间,应通过目的论限缩加以区分;对质量保证期与检验期间的时间范围"双重干涉"问题,应按照合同解释方法排除一个干涉。《买卖合同法解释》的贡献是赋予了法院干预约定检验期间的裁量权,但在提供的解决思路上仍存在重要的不足。
In German Law, American Law and CISG, the period for examination of goods and the period for notice of nonconformity are clearly distinguished; time requirement for examination is promptly or with a reasonable opportunity, while the one for notification is promptly or within a reasonable time. Contractual period of guarantee under CISG is applied to replace the time - limit of two - year for notification. Under Chinese Contract Law（ CCL）, however, the inspection peri- od absorbs the period for notification, and as a contractual period, has the same function as time - limit. Therefore, the effect of inspection period in CCL is very harsh; guarantee periods for quality in China have different types and can only in- terfere in, but not be equal to time- limit. There exists the ＂double -interference in time -limit＂ issue. Teleolo^cal re- duction shall be applied to the inspection period in Articles 158 （ 1 ） and 157 of CCL, so that they may be distinguished. When dealing with the ＂double - interference in time - limit＂ issue, the contract must be interpreted so as to exclude one ＂interference＂. Judicial Interpretation on Contract Law for Sales has entitled the court to interfere in the agreement of in- spection period, but still has some disadvantages in those areas.
出处
《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2013年第5期81-92,共12页
Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law
关键词
检验期间
违约通知期间
质量保证期
inspection period
period for notice of breach
guarantee period for quality
