专业团队

合同是双方依法签订的，但是如果一方在合同履行时就去世了，那么合同应该怎么办呢?是继续履行还是合同作废呢?

一、我国法律对于合同一方当事人死亡后合同效力问题并未作出明确规定。

我国《合同法》第九十一条规定合同权利义务终止的情形有7种，即(一)债务已经按照约定履行;(二)合同解除;(三)债务相互抵销;(四)债务人依法将债务提存;(五)债权人免除债务;(六)债权债务同归于一人;(七)法律规定或者当事人约定终止的其他情形。一方当事人死亡，显然不属于上述(一)至(六)的情形，而当事人如果不在合同中约定一方当事人死亡后合同效力终止或者不将一方当事人死亡约定为对方当事人可以解除合同的条件并且行使合同解除权的话，似乎合同权利义务还继续存在。

然而，《合同法》第八条规定，依法成立的合同，对当事人有法律约束力。当事人应当按照约定履行自己的义务，不得擅自变更或者解除合同。这条法律确定的原则，即“合同相对性原则”。即合同只在当事人之间有法律约束力，对第三人没有约束力。合同的效力范围仅限于合同当事人之间，第三人不能主张合同上的权利，也不能承担合同上的义务。而一旦当事人死亡，显然法律是无法对死人有约束力的。按照这个逻辑来说，似乎合同的权利义务就应该自然终止，也就是说合同效力终止了。

这种看似矛盾的两点正是产生前面两种观点的主要依据，也是前面两个案件法律争议发生的根本原因。法律规定的不明确，直接导致了一方当事人死亡后合同效力不确定的法律风险。

二、一方当事人死亡后，合同是否继续有效，应当区别对待。

首先，从维护交易便利和保障交易安全的角度来讲，对于纯属财产性质的合同(比如买卖和租赁合同)，一方当事人死亡的，不应影响合同的效力。因为，虽然合同相对性原则是合同法中的一个重要原则，但尽如一个比较有名的谚语所说，没有不存在例外的规则，合同相对性原则也是有例外的。当代无论是大陆法系国家还是英美法系国家为了符合交易便利和交易安全，衡平当事人与第三人之间，当事人与社会之间的利益，多数都在坚持合同相对性原则的基础上作了一些突破性的规定。我国也同样如此，比如，《合同法》第六十四条规定的关于第三人受益合同;第七十三条规定的代位权;第七十四条规定的撤销权;第二百二十九条规定的买卖不破租赁等都在一定程度上突破了合同相对性原则。应当说，这些突破性的规定体现了我国立法从个体本位向社会本位法律思想的转变。《合同法》第二百二十九条之规定的买卖不破租赁，财产的权属变更不应影响成立在先的租赁一样。至于说如何履行，根据《继承法》第三十三条之规定，继承遗产应当清偿被继承人依法应当缴纳的税款和债务。如果法定继承人不放弃继承财产，则应该继续履行租赁合同中出租方(即被继承人)的义务。

其次，关于具有人身依附性的合同(如服务合同)，一方当事人死亡的，合同效力自然终止。因为这类合同的签订，一般都是一方当事人基于对另一方当事人本人具有的经验、能力，甚至是个人品格方面的胜任才与之签订相应的合同。在这种情况下，如果该当事人死亡，合同权利义务仍不终止的话，则有违另一方当事人订立合同的真实意愿了，这显然与我国《合同法》第四条规定的自愿原则有冲突。另外，根据《合同法》第七十九条规定之精神，含有人身依附的合同属于根据合同性质不可转让之合同。同理，其继承人也不应继承该合同的权利和义务。因此，此类合同的权利义务应该随着合同主体的死亡而自然终止。

A contract is signed by both parties in accordance with the law, but what should be done if one party dies during the performance of the contract? Should we continue to perform or invalidate the contract?

1、 There is no clear provision in Chinese law regarding the validity of a contract after the death of one party to the contract.

Article 91 of the Contract Law of China stipulates that there are 7 situations in which the rights and obligations of a contract are terminated, namely (1) the debt has been fulfilled in accordance with the agreement; （2） Termination of the contract; （3） Debt offset each other; （4） The debtor shall deposit the debt in accordance with the law; （5） Creditors release debts; （6） Both creditor's rights and debts belong to the same person; （7） Other circumstances stipulated by law or agreed upon by the parties for termination. The death of one party obviously does not fall under the circumstances mentioned in (1) to (6) above, and if the parties do not agree in the contract that the contract will terminate after the death of one party or do not agree that the death of one party is a condition for the other party to terminate the contract and exercise the right to terminate the contract, it seems that the contractual rights and obligations still exist.

However, Article 8 of the Contract Law stipulates that contracts established in accordance with the law are legally binding on the parties. The parties shall fulfill their obligations as agreed and shall not unilaterally modify or terminate the contract. The principle established by this law is the principle of relativity in contracts. The contract is only legally binding between the parties and has no binding force on third parties. The scope of effectiveness of a contract is limited to the parties to the contract, and third parties cannot claim rights or assume obligations under the contract. Once a party dies, it is clear that the law cannot be binding on the deceased. According to this logic, it seems that the rights and obligations of the contract should naturally terminate, that is to say, the effectiveness of the contract has terminated.

These seemingly contradictory two points are the main basis for the first two viewpoints and the fundamental reason for the legal disputes in the first two cases. The unclear legal provisions directly lead to the legal risk of uncertain contract effectiveness after the death of one party.

2、 Whether a contract remains valid after the death of one party should be treated differently.

Firstly, from the perspective of maintaining transaction convenience and ensuring transaction security, for contracts that are purely property in nature (such as sales and lease contracts), the death of one party should not affect the effectiveness of the contract. Because, although the principle of relativity of contract is an important principle in contract law, as a well-known saying goes, there is no rule without exceptions, and the principle of relativity of contract also has exceptions. In order to facilitate and ensure transaction safety, balance the interests of parties and third parties, as well as between parties and society, most contemporary countries under the civil law system and the common law system have made some breakthrough provisions based on the principle of relativity of contracts. The same is true in China, for example, Article 64 of the Contract Law stipulates that contracts for the benefit of third parties; The right of subrogation as stipulated in Article 73; The revocation right stipulated in Article 74; The provisions of Article 229, such as buying and selling without breaking the lease, have to some extent broken through the principle of relativity in contracts. It should be said that these groundbreaking provisions reflect the transformation of China's legislation from an individual oriented to a social oriented legal ideology. Article 229 of the Contract Law stipulates that the sale does not break the lease, and the change of property ownership should not affect the lease that was established earlier. As for how to fulfill it, according to Article 33 of the Inheritance Law, inheriting an inheritance should pay off the taxes and debts that the deceased should pay in accordance with the law. If the legal heir does not give up the inheritance of the property, they should continue to fulfill the obligations of the lessor (i.e. the deceased) in the lease contract.

Secondly, regarding contracts with personal attachment (such as service contracts), if one party dies, the effectiveness of the contract naturally terminates. Because the signing of such contracts is generally based on the experience, ability, and even personal character of one party to the other party before signing the corresponding contract. In this case, if the party concerned dies and the rights and obligations of the contract are not terminated, it is against the true intention of the other party to enter into the contract, which obviously conflicts with the voluntary principle stipulated in Article 4 of China's Contract Law. In addition, according to the spirit of Article 79 of the Contract Law, contracts containing personal attachment are non transferable contracts based on the nature of the contract. Similarly, the heir should not inherit the rights and obligations of the contract. Therefore, the rights and obligations of such contracts should naturally terminate with the death of the contracting party.