A Comparative Study on Remedies for Breach between the CISG and Myanmar Sale Law

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

国际法学院

作者：

KHIN HTAR WIN

导师：

李满奎

导师单位：

经济法学院（生态法学院）

学位：

博士

语种：

中文

关键词：

《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》;《缅甸销售法》;合同行为;救济

摘要：

本文将比较分析 1980 年《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》（CISG）和《缅甸销售 法》（SGA）中违约责任救济规则的异同。 纵观人类历史，商品的买卖自古以来就是商业活动的一个重要部分。商品交易涉 及到货物和服务在国家间的流通。随着市场经济的发展，工业制成品市场的增长和发 展中国家原材料新市场的开放，海外贸易得以扩张。一种简单有效的沟通方式使商人 能够更可靠地远距离购买和销售商品，而现代技术使商品能在更短的时间内运往世界 各地。 国际销售合同和其他合同一样，适用与之相关的国内法律。商品交易以买卖双方 订立的合同为基础，双方都享有订立商品买卖合同的权利。合同一旦成立，双方当事 人就应当按照合同的约定履行义务。但是，合同双方有时会发生违反合同义务的情况。 因此，法律对违约的情况规定了几种救济措施，以避免或减少此类行为，并赔偿受害 者的损失。就合同而言，违反合同义务可以分为不同情况，并可根据不同的法律得到 不同的救济。此外，救济规则作为国际贸易中提出索赔的主要依据，成为国际贸易的 基础。当一方当事人违反或者不履行合同时，受害方有权请求损害赔偿。因此，对违 反合同义务的救济无论对于国内商品交易或者国际贸易都是十分重要的。 本文将结合其他相关法律条款，比较分析 CISG 和《缅甸销售法》中对于撤销合同、 损害赔偿和实际履行等三种主要救济规则的相应规定。 本文将考察违约行为的构成要件，并在此基础上，探讨 CISG 和《缅甸销售法》对 根本违约的不同认定要件。即使违反的合同义务相同务，但在两种法律中却可能被认 定为不同的违约行为，从而适用不同的救济规则。 两部法律采用了不同的方式限制受害方行使撤销权。CISG 主要通过时效限制合同 的解除。也就是说，在这种制度下，任何一方想要解除合同都要在一定时间内发出声 明或通知。超过一定期限发出的通知无效。而《缅甸销售法》中对当事人违约解除权 的限制主要包括两种方式：一种是通过受害方的行为，另一种是通过司法行为。受害 方的行为涉及到一般普通法原则：确认和弃权。当受害方知道违约行为和自己有权终 ii 止合同时，仍然确认合同有效，则其丧失撤销权。另一种限制是通过司法的运行，在 判决中评估合同终止或撤销的相关方案。 在国际贸易中，一旦发生违约行为，受害方就有权要求对其损害进行救济，要求 违约方对违约造成的损失进行赔偿。因此，了解损害赔偿规则对于维护缔约双方的利 益是至关重要的。一项有效的损害赔偿规则应当保障当事人的预期结果。也就是说， 当事人应该清楚何种情况下能得到何种赔偿。这是将根据 CISG 和《缅甸销售法》探讨 的一项重要规则。 实际履行规则在 CISG 中的含义比《缅甸销售法》更广泛。在 CISG 中，实际履行 规则包括买卖双方对彼此的请求权；而在缅甸的法律中，实际履行规则只强调买房对 卖方的请求权。基于此，本文将考察两种制度下实际履行规则的先决条件和审判限制。 随着现代世界经济的发展，国内商事法律不能满足国际贸易的需求，提供解决国 际贸易摩擦的方法。商业需求发生变化，商人的贸易方式也发生变化。海外贸易的蓬 勃发展也使国际贸易摩擦进入人们的视野，许多国家已经着手规范国际贸易。因此， 即使缅甸不是 CISG 的缔约国，缅甸的政府，商人和律师也应当着眼于国际贸易规则， 并积极寻求加入 CISG。

学科：

国际法学

提交日期：

2026-03-31

引用参考：

KHIN HTAR WIN. A Comparative Study on Remedies for Breach between the CISG and Myanmar Sale Law[D]. 西南政法大学,2016.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • A Comparative Study on Remedies for Breach between the CISG and Myanmar Sale Law
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • WB201603010912
  • dc.contributor.author
  • KHIN HTAR WIN
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 博士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学博士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2016
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 李满奎
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 经济法学院（生态法学院）
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》;《缅甸销售法》;合同行为;救济
  • dc.subject
  • CISG,;SGA;Contract Act;remedies
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 本文将比较分析 1980 年《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》（CISG）和《缅甸销售 法》（SGA）中违约责任救济规则的异同。 纵观人类历史，商品的买卖自古以来就是商业活动的一个重要部分。商品交易涉 及到货物和服务在国家间的流通。随着市场经济的发展，工业制成品市场的增长和发 展中国家原材料新市场的开放，海外贸易得以扩张。一种简单有效的沟通方式使商人 能够更可靠地远距离购买和销售商品，而现代技术使商品能在更短的时间内运往世界 各地。 国际销售合同和其他合同一样，适用与之相关的国内法律。商品交易以买卖双方 订立的合同为基础，双方都享有订立商品买卖合同的权利。合同一旦成立，双方当事 人就应当按照合同的约定履行义务。但是，合同双方有时会发生违反合同义务的情况。 因此，法律对违约的情况规定了几种救济措施，以避免或减少此类行为，并赔偿受害 者的损失。就合同而言，违反合同义务可以分为不同情况，并可根据不同的法律得到 不同的救济。此外，救济规则作为国际贸易中提出索赔的主要依据，成为国际贸易的 基础。当一方当事人违反或者不履行合同时，受害方有权请求损害赔偿。因此，对违 反合同义务的救济无论对于国内商品交易或者国际贸易都是十分重要的。 本文将结合其他相关法律条款，比较分析 CISG 和《缅甸销售法》中对于撤销合同、 损害赔偿和实际履行等三种主要救济规则的相应规定。 本文将考察违约行为的构成要件，并在此基础上，探讨 CISG 和《缅甸销售法》对 根本违约的不同认定要件。即使违反的合同义务相同务，但在两种法律中却可能被认 定为不同的违约行为，从而适用不同的救济规则。 两部法律采用了不同的方式限制受害方行使撤销权。CISG 主要通过时效限制合同 的解除。也就是说，在这种制度下，任何一方想要解除合同都要在一定时间内发出声 明或通知。超过一定期限发出的通知无效。而《缅甸销售法》中对当事人违约解除权 的限制主要包括两种方式：一种是通过受害方的行为，另一种是通过司法行为。受害 方的行为涉及到一般普通法原则：确认和弃权。当受害方知道违约行为和自己有权终 ii 止合同时，仍然确认合同有效，则其丧失撤销权。另一种限制是通过司法的运行，在 判决中评估合同终止或撤销的相关方案。 在国际贸易中，一旦发生违约行为，受害方就有权要求对其损害进行救济，要求 违约方对违约造成的损失进行赔偿。因此，了解损害赔偿规则对于维护缔约双方的利 益是至关重要的。一项有效的损害赔偿规则应当保障当事人的预期结果。也就是说， 当事人应该清楚何种情况下能得到何种赔偿。这是将根据 CISG 和《缅甸销售法》探讨 的一项重要规则。 实际履行规则在 CISG 中的含义比《缅甸销售法》更广泛。在 CISG 中，实际履行 规则包括买卖双方对彼此的请求权；而在缅甸的法律中，实际履行规则只强调买房对 卖方的请求权。基于此，本文将考察两种制度下实际履行规则的先决条件和审判限制。 随着现代世界经济的发展，国内商事法律不能满足国际贸易的需求，提供解决国 际贸易摩擦的方法。商业需求发生变化，商人的贸易方式也发生变化。海外贸易的蓬 勃发展也使国际贸易摩擦进入人们的视野，许多国家已经着手规范国际贸易。因此， 即使缅甸不是 CISG 的缔约国，缅甸的政府，商人和律师也应当着眼于国际贸易规则， 并积极寻求加入 CISG。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • This dissertation is a comparative analysis of the remedies for breach between the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980 (the CISG) and the Myanmar Sale Law, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (SGA). It will mainly focus on the similarities and differences of the remedies for breach between the two systems. Throughout the human history, selling and buying goods is an essential part of business, which is also an important even in ancient society. Commercial transactions are related to the exportation and importation of goods and services from one country to another country. With the development of the market economy, the growth of markets for manufactured goods and the opening up of new markets in raw materials from developing countries have led to an expansion in overseas trade. An effective and easy method for communication has enabled traders to buy and sell goods at a distance more reliably, and modern technology has made it much easier to transport goods around the globe in shorter periods of time. An international sales contract, like any other contract, is governed by a particular domestic law relating. The selling and buying of goods is especially based on a contract which was concluded by the parties involved in the sale. The parties, the seller and buyer, have the right to make a contract for the matter of trade. When a contract is concluded, both parties have the certain obligations, and they must fulfill contractual obligations to implement their contract. However, sometimes a breach of contract may arise between concluding parties. Hence, the law provides several remedies for breach to discourage and reduce parties from breach and also entitled to the aggrieved party for any loss. Regarding to contract, the breach of the contractual obligation may be categorized into different types and lead to different remedies under different laws. Moreover, remedies rules are the main reasons why claims are made in the international trade and as such they are fundamental to international trade. In the event of a breach, the aggrieved party is entitled to claim remedies for his injury or loss. Consequently, the available remedies for breach are particularly important in both domestic and overseas trade. With some other relevant provisions of remedies rules, in this dissertation mainly compares on the three major remedial rules of breach of contract; avoidance of contract, iv damages and specific performance under the CISG with the reciprocal equivalent rules of the Myanmar sale law. This dissertation will examine the compositions of the breach of contract. And then, it will explore the different prerequisite of fundamental breach in the CISG and the Myanmar Sale Law. The breach of the same contractual obligation may be composited into different types of breach and lead to different remedies under the two regimes. These two laws adopt different approaches to restrain the right of termination. The CISG mainly limit the time for the exercise of right. That is to say, either a party who want to avoid the contract must declare or notice within a reasonable time. If the notice of avoidance is given beyond a reasonable time, then he or she releases the right to avoid. While the Myanmar Sale Law limit the right by two ways: the aggrieved party’s own conduct and the operation of the rule of law. The aggrieved party’s own conduct concerns some common law principles like affirmation and waiver. When the aggrieved party knew the breach and his right to terminate and yet still decided to affirm the contract, then he loses the right of termination. The other is by the operation of law through acceptance. This Dissertation will examine which solution is more achievable for making judgments, in practice. In the international trade, once the breach occurs, the aggrieved party immediately has a right to claim damages for his loss. The aggrieved party would require the breaching party to remedy the damages resulting from the breach of contract. Therefore, the knowledge of the damages rules under the applicable law is essential for the interests of the contracting parties. Effective damages rules should offer the parties concerned with an expectant outcome. In other words, it should be clear to the contracting parties about what and when damages are recoverable resulting from breach. This dissertation will explore the important rules relating to damages in the CISG and the Myanmar Sale Law. Speak of specific performance; it has a more extensive meaning in the CISG than in the Myanmar Sale Law. In the CISG, the specific performance rules accommodate both the buyer’s right to require the seller’s performance of contract and the seller’s right to require the buyer’s performance. Whereas, the specific performance rules generally refer only to the buyer’s request of the seller’s delivery in the Myanmar Sale Law. Regarding to this, this dissertation will investigate the prerequisites and restrictions for decree of specific performance under the two regimes. v With the development of the world economy, domestic commercial law fails to satisfy with the needs of international business and solve trade disputes. As the needs of commerce have changed, so have the practices of businessmen. Increased overseas trade has drawn attention to the problems and disputes in countries that have chosen to regulate international sales. Therefore, even if Myanmar is not a contracting state of the CISG, the merchants, lawyers and the government of Myanmar should learn and try to understand more knowledgeable about current principles of international trade and think over joining to the CISG.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-31
回到顶部