合同的诉讼时效问题The issue of statute of limitations in contract litigation
关于诉讼时效的规定主要体现在《民法通则》中，《合同法》有一条特别规定，《民法通则》中的规定为：“向人民法院请求保护民事权利的诉讼时效期间为2年，法律另有规定的除外”。对时效的起算的规定为：“诉讼时效期间从知道或者应当知道权利被侵害时起计算。但是，从权利被侵害之日起超过20年的人民法院不予保护”。《合同法》中的规定为：“因国际货物买卖合同和技术进出口合同争议提起诉讼或者申请仲裁的期限为4年，自当事人知道或者应当知道其权利受到侵害之起计算。有特殊情况的，人民法院可以延长诉讼时效和期间，因其他合同争议提起诉讼或者申请仲裁的期限，依照有关法律的规定”。
上述是民事纠纷中关于诉讼时效的主要法律规定，也是关于合同之诉中诉讼时效的主要法律依据。从该法律规定中，我们可以得出以下两点结论：第一关于胜诉权的保护期间;第二是关于诉讼时效起始的计算及如何计算的规定。第一点有2年、4年及20年的期限规定，在这无容置疑。但是关于第二点就存在有以下可以提出的问题和需要解决的问题。
一、合同之诉中如何确定权利被侵害的法律事实。
从理论上讲我们知道，民事诉讼中围绕实体权利的请求权产生了侵权之诉，合同之诉，无因管理之诉及不当得利之诉等。而实体权利的请求权，是基于债权请求权体系中产生的权利，而债权产生的原因又有合同、侵权行为、不当得利、无因管理等，均是债权发生的原因，当然也是债务发生的原因，而合同、侵权行为、不当得利、无因管理等又是不同的法律事实，又是通过不同的法律规定予以明确和界定，所以这就产生了在合同之诉中如何确定权利被侵害的法律事实问题，以此适用诉讼时效的规定。
而侵害概念的使用，从法律界定及理论上均体现和反映的是侵权之债的内容，属于侵权法体系的范畴，显然不是合同法体系的范畴，因此在合同之诉中去确定侵害的事实就出现了理论上的矛盾及在实际操作中无法可依的情形，这显然就导致了逻辑上的混乱。
为了达到理论上的和谐统一，只能将“侵害”概念的外延扩大化：违约行为是属于侵害的范畴，合同无效及未生效均是侵害的范畴，也就是说导致合同之诉的各种事实均可以确定为侵害的法律事实，在实务操作中只能这样去理解并适用。否则在合同之诉中涉及到诉讼时效的问题，依据不足。
事实上这样的理解显然有些牵强附会。因此我认为在合同之诉中应当对时效起算的法律事实重新确定并规定，对引起合同之诉的各种法律事实在适用诉讼时效时均应予以时确的界定，以此理顺在实务操作中就合同之诉对诉讼时效的适用。
二、合同之诉中诉讼时效何时起算的问题
如果确定了侵害事实，实际上也就确定了时效起算的时点，但是由于侵害事实的复杂性，在法律适用上的不明确，所以在不同的情况下在考虑诉讼时效的起算时应当具体情况具体分析，以便于更好地保护债权人的权利。
1、合同违约之诉中时效的确定与起算;
在合同履行过程中，违约行为是否会导致时效的开始计算，有意见认为应当开始计算，理由是违约事实的发生，也就是时效制度中侵害事实的开始，但是我认为违约行为不能必然导致诉讼时效的开始计算，原因是违约行为的复杂性，如果双方的合同关系仍处于存续期间，双方的权利义务关系受到合同约束的情况下，不应由于违约行为导致时效的起算，在这种情况下应当考虑合同履行的期限问题，应当按照合同关系最终履行终止的时点开始起算时效，例如双方的合同关系由于条件及期限的存在而没有终止，就不能以一方违约行为发生之日就开始起算时效。这样可以更好地保护债权人的胜诉权，也可以避免因为双方权利义务关系仍处于存续期间，而一方却丧失了胜诉权。
在合同履行过程中出现的分段履行的合同或者分期履行的合同，我认为应当按照双方合同最终履行完备的终期来确定时效的起算，如果分段或者分期计算时效，会出现在合同双方的主体均处于受约束的状态时却因为违约行为的事实出现了胜诉权的丧失，例如有时债务人前期的义务没有履行却履行了后一时期的义务，如果这时由于义务人的违约，权利人失去了前期权利的胜诉权，这显然不是立法的本意。
所以我考虑对于合同中侵害事实的成立，它的立法本意仅仅规范的是在合同履行过程中的侵权之诉，这样从理论上与法律规定上是协调一致的。对于有履行期限的合同及分段或者分期履行的合同，是以终期确定时效的起算。
基于上述理由，对于无履行期限的合同在确定时效的起算时也应当考虑双方未确定履行期限的事实原因。不确定履行期限，有多种原因，更多的是基于合同对双方当事人的约束，也就是双 方当事人为了实现合同目的，而造成该合同成为无履行期限制的合同，因此由于这种情况的存在，就不应当受制于时效制度的约束。
如果是由于条款不完备的原因造成的，就应当考虑当事人的真实意思表示，来确定履行期限的终期。
因此我认为在违约之诉中虽然违约的事实已经产生，但是时效的计算应当全面考虑合同的实际情况，如果双方的权利义务关系由于期限及条件的原因仍然存在，就不能单纯因违约事实的存在而导致时效的起算。
2、合同无效情形下的时效起算(这里不包括可撤销合同的无效后果，因为该种情形受到除斥期间的限制);
在现行法律中显然没有对合同无效权利主张的时效规定，但是因为合同无效所产生的民事纠纷因具体情况的不同一样受到时效制度的约束，我认为不应当因为请求权的问题而导致合同无效的主张不受诉讼时效的制度约束。
第一、就合同无效的主张而言，我认为当事人随时可以主张，不受2年时效制度的限制。但是应当受到20年最长时效期限的限制。起算的时间应当从合同订立之日起起算，因为合同无效会造成合同自始无效。但是由于民事权利诉讼时效最长期限为20年，所以不能超过这最长保护期限的规定。
对于侵害的界定，由于当事人一方以欺诈、胁迫的手段订立合同，损害国家利益;恶意串通，损害国家、集体或者第三人利益;以合法形式掩盖非法目的;损害社会公共利益;违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定;这些违法行为已经构成了侵害的事实，所以从订立之日起已经形成了侵害或者说侵权的事实，所以当事人应当按照时效的规定去主张权利，但是由于刑法中均有追诉时效的限制，所以我认为从立法的本意上讲，上述情形应当受到20年时效的限制，这样也符合时效制度设立的理论本意。
第二、合同无效所造成的后果应当适用诉讼时效制度;
由于合同无效后会造成“因合同取得的财产，应当予以返还及折价补偿，及有过错的一方应当赔偿对方因此所受到的损失，双方都有过错的，应当各自承担相应的责任”的法律后果，因此就这里涉及到还返及折价补偿及承担过错责任时均要受到时效制度的约束，在此所形成的请求权涉及到了侵权所造成的原因，不当得利所造成的原因，在具体操作时应当依照生效的判决所确定的时期，为时效的起算日，因为从法院生效的判决生效之日起作为权利人的一方才知道其权利属于上述情况，那么在主张权利时就应当受到时效制度的相应限制。
在合同因撤销所造成的无效后果的情形下，也包含在了上述情形中。
The provisions on the statute of limitations for litigation are mainly reflected in the General Principles of the Civil Law. There is a special provision in the Contract Law, which stipulates that "the statute of limitations for litigation requesting protection of civil rights from the people's court is 2 years, except as otherwise provided by law.". The provision for the calculation of statute of limitations is as follows: "The statute of limitations for litigation shall be calculated from the time when it is known or should be known that a right has been infringed upon. However, people's courts shall not protect the statute of limitations for more than 20 years from the date of infringement.". The provisions of the Contract Law are as follows: "The time limit for filing a lawsuit or applying for arbitration in disputes arising from international sales contracts and technology import and export contracts is 4 years, calculated from the date when the parties knew or should have known that their rights were infringed. In special circumstances, the people's court may extend the statute of limitations and the time limit for filing a lawsuit or applying for arbitration in disputes arising from other contracts, in accordance with relevant laws.".
The above are the main legal provisions on statute of limitations in civil disputes, and also the main legal basis for statute of limitations in contract litigation. From this legal provision, we can draw the following two conclusions: firstly, regarding the protection period of the right to win the lawsuit; The second is the provision on the calculation of the statute of limitations for litigation and how to calculate it. There is no doubt that there are deadlines of 2, 4, and 20 years for the first point. However, regarding the second point, there are the following issues that can be raised and need to be addressed.
1、 How to determine the legal fact of infringement of rights in contract litigation.
In theory, we know that civil litigation revolves around the right to claim substantive rights, resulting in lawsuits for infringement, contracts, unfounded management, and unjust enrichment. The right to claim substantive rights is based on the rights generated in the system of creditor's rights, and the reasons for the emergence of creditor's rights include contract, infringement, improper enrichment, and unfounded management, all of which are the reasons for the occurrence of creditor's rights, and of course, also the reasons for the occurrence of debt. Contract, infringement, improper enrichment, and unfounded management are different legal facts, which are clearly defined and defined through different legal provisions, So this raises the question of how to determine the legal fact of infringement of rights in contract litigation, in order to apply the provisions of statute of limitations.
The use of the concept of infringement reflects and reflects the content of the debt of infringement from both legal and theoretical perspectives, belonging to the scope of the tort law system and obviously not the scope of the contract law system. Therefore, determining the facts of infringement in contract litigation leads to theoretical contradictions and situations that cannot be relied on in practical operation, which obviously leads to logical confusion.
In order to achieve theoretical harmony and unity, the extension of the concept of "infringement" can only be expanded: breach of contract belongs to the category of infringement, and the invalidity and non effectiveness of the contract are both within the category of infringement. In other words, all the facts that lead to the lawsuit of the contract can be determined as legal facts of infringement, which can only be understood and applied in practical operations in this way. Otherwise, there is insufficient basis for the issue of statute of limitations in contract litigation.
In fact, this understanding is obviously somewhat far fetched. Therefore, I believe that in contract litigation, the legal facts starting from the statute of limitations should be redefined and stipulated, and various legal facts that give rise to contract litigation should be accurately defined when applying statute of limitations, in order to clarify the application of statute of limitations in practical operations for contract litigation.
2、 The issue of when the statute of limitations for litigation in contract litigation begins
If the facts of infringement are determined, it actually determines the starting point of the statute of limitations. However, due to the complexity of the facts of infringement and the unclear application of law, in different situations, when considering the starting point of the statute of limitations for litigation, specific situations should be analyzed to better protect the rights of creditors.
1. The determination and calculation of the statute of limitations in the lawsuit for breach of contract;
In the process of contract performance, will the breach of contract lead to the start of statute of limitations? Some opinions believe that the calculation should be started because of the occurrence of the breach of contract, which is the beginning of the infringement in the statute of limitations system. However, I believe that the breach of contract cannot necessarily lead to the start of statute of limitations in litigation, because the complexity of the breach of contract. If the contractual relationship between the two parties is still in existence, When the rights and obligations of both parties are bound by the contract, the start of the statute of limitations should not be due to breach of contract. In this case, the issue of the time limit for contract performance should be considered, and the statute of limitations should be calculated from the point when the final performance of the contract relationship terminates. For example, if the contract relationship between the two parties is not terminated due to the existence of conditions and time limits, the statute of limitations cannot be calculated from the date when one party's breach of contract occurs. This can better protect the creditor's right to win, and also avoid losing the right to win because the rights and obligations of both parties are still in existence.
In the process of contract performance, if a contract is to be performed in stages or in stages, I believe that the start of the statute of limitations should be determined based on the final and complete performance of the contract by both parties. If the statute of limitations is to be calculated in stages or stages, it may occur when both parties are in a state of constraint, but the right to sue is lost due to the fact of breach of contract, For example, sometimes the debtor fails to fulfill their previous obligations but fulfills the obligations of a later period. If at this time, due to the debtor's breach, the right holder loses the right to win the previous rights, this is obviously not the original intention of legislation.
So I consider the establishment of the fact of infringement in the contract. Its legislative intention is only to regulate the lawsuit of infringement during the performance of the contract, which is theoretically consistent with legal provisions. For contracts with a performance period and contracts with segmented or installment performance, the time limit is determined based on the final period.
Based on the above reasons, for contracts without a performance period, the factual reasons why both parties have not determined the performance period should also be considered when determining the start of the statute of limitations. There are various reasons for the uncertainty of the performance period, and more importantly, it is based on the constraints of the contract on both parties. That is, in order to achieve the purpose of the contract, both parties make the contract an unlimited performance period contract. Therefore, due to the existence of this situation, it should not be subject to the constraints of the statute of limitations system.
If it is caused by incomplete clauses, the true expression of the parties should be considered to determine the end of the performance period.
Therefore, I believe that although the fact of breach has already occurred in the lawsuit for breach of contract, the calculation of statute of limitations should comprehensively consider the actual situation of the contract. If the rights and obligations of both parties still exist due to the existence of time and conditions, the calculation of statute of limitations cannot be solely caused by the existence of breach of contract facts.
2. The statute of limitations in the event of contract invalidity (excluding the consequences of voidable contracts, as such circumstances are subject to the limitation of the exclusion period);
There is clearly no statute of limitations for claims of contract invalidity in current laws, but civil disputes arising from contract invalidity are also subject to the statute of limitations system due to different specific circumstances. I believe that claims of contract invalidity should not be exempt from the statute of limitations system due to issues with the right to claim.
Firstly, regarding the claim of invalidity of the contract, I believe that the parties can claim it at any time without being limited by the 2-year statute of limitations. However, it should be subject to a maximum statute of limitations of 20 years. The starting time should be calculated from the date of contract formation, as the invalidity of the contract will result in the contract being invalid from the beginning. However, since the maximum statute of limitations for civil rights litigation is 20 years, it cannot exceed this maximum protection period.
For the definition of infringement, due to one party entering into a contract through fraudulent or coercive means, which harms national interests; Malicious collusion that harms the interests of the state, collective, or third parties; Covering up illegal purposes in a legal form; Harming the public interest of society; Violating mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations; These illegal acts have already constituted the fact of infringement, so from the date of establishment, they have already formed the fact of infringement or infringement. Therefore, the parties should claim their rights according to the provisions of the statute of limitations. However, since there are limitations on the statute of limitations in criminal law, I believe that from the original intention of legislation, the above situations should be subject to a 20-year statute of limitations, which is also in line with the theoretical intention of establishing a statute of limitations system.
Secondly, the consequences caused by the invalidity of the contract should be subject to the statute of limitations system;
Due to the legal consequences that may arise from the invalidity of a contract, such as the obligation to return and compensate for the property acquired through the contract, and the obligation of the party at fault to compensate for the losses suffered by the other party, and the obligation of each party to bear corresponding responsibilities if both parties are at fault, both parties must be bound by the statute of limitations when it comes to returning and compensating for damages, as well as assuming fault liability, The right of claim formed here involves the reasons caused by infringement and unjust enrichment. In specific operations, the period determined by the effective judgment should be the starting date of the statute of limitations, because the party who is the right holder only knows that their rights belong to the above situation from the effective date of the court's effective judgment. Therefore, when claiming rights, they should be subject to the corresponding limitations of the statute of limitations system.
The invalidity consequences caused by the revocation of the contract are also included in the above situations.