英美法中一方因另一方的违约而有权终止合同的情形:（1）合同的一方实质性地未能履行其合同义务;（2）合同赋予了一方终止合同的权利; 或（3）合同的一方拒绝履行合同或者使自己丧失履行合同的能力（预期违约）。
Termination for Breach
基于违约终止合同
EllenPang[1], Jialin Shi[2]
The right to terminate for breach arises where (1) aparty is guilty of substantial failure to perform; (2) the contract confers ona party the power to terminate; or (3) a party renounces the contract ordisables himself from performing the contract (anticipatory breach).
终止合同的权利产生于下列情形中:（1）合同的一方实质性地未能履行其合同义务;（2）合同赋予了一方终止合同的权利; 或（3）合同的一方拒绝履行合同或者使自己丧失履行合同的能力（预期违约）。
Fundamental breach
根本违约
One party’s performance may be deficient in quality or quantityor it may be late. As a matter of general law, the innocent party is onlyentitled to terminate the contract when the defect attains a certain degree ofseriousness - substantial failure.
合同一方的履行可能在数量或质量上存在瑕疵，或者在时间上存在迟延。在合同没有另行约定的情况下，守约方只有在该等瑕疵达到一定的严重程度——构成实质性地未能履行合同义务时，才有权终止合同。
A substantial failure to perform, or a fundamentalbreach, occurs where the events resultingfrom the breach have the effect of depriving the innocent party ofsubstantially the whole benefit which it was intended that he should obtainfrom the contract.[3]
实质性地未能履行合同义务，或称作根本违约，指的是违约行为所造成的后果实质上剥夺了守约方本可预期从合同中获得的全部利益。
In Hong KongFir, Lord Diplock stressed that it is the events resulting from abreach, not the breach itself that relieves the innocent party from thefuture performance of the contract.[4]The test for termination is the same whether or not the event occurs as a resultof the default of a party, but the consequences in the two cases are different.Where the event occurs as a result of the default of neither party (i.e.frustration), each is relieved of the further performance of his ownundertakings. In case of a fundamental breach the innocent party has the rightto, but need not treat himself as discharged. The innocent party has an optionto either accept the breach and sue for damages or affirm the contract andinsist on performance.
在Hong Kong Fir案中，Diplock勋爵强调说，使得守约方免于继续履行合同的是违约行为所造成的结果，而非违约行为本身。无论该等结果是不是因一方的违约而引起的，判断合同是否终止的标准都是一致的，只是救济不尽相同。如果导致合同终止的事项并非由任何一方的过错引起（即合同落空），则双方都可以免于继续履行其在合同项下的义务。而在根本违约的情况中，守约方有权免于继续履行合同，但并不必须如此。守约方有权选择接受违约（accept the breach）并请求赔偿，或者确认合同（affirm the contract）并要求对方继续履行。
The rationale behind fundamental breach is that theinnocent party should be allowed to treat himself as discharged where he haslost the substantial interest that he should be entitled to under the contract.Understandably, it does not make much sense to require the innocent party tocarry on with the performance if the commercial purpose of the venture isalready frustrated.
根本违约制度背后的法理在于，当守约方已经失去其原本有权从合同中获得的实质性利益时，就应当允许守约方选择免于继续履行其合同义务。在守约方订立合同的商业目的已经落空的情况下，仍然要求守约方继续履行其合同义务，显然是不合理的。
Contractual Power to Terminate - Breach of condition
合同约定的终止权 – 违反条件条款
A contractual power to terminate must be understoodin the context of a tripartite classification of terms. A condition is a term abreach of which will entitle a party to terminate the contract. A breach ofwarranty, on the other hand, will only give rise to a right to claim damagesand not the right to terminate.
合同约定的终止权必须放在合同条款的三分法中加以理解。条件条款（condition）是指一旦被违反就使得守约方有权终止合同的条款。而违反保证条款（warranty）则仅使得守约方获得索赔损失的权利，而非终止合同的权利。
There exists a third category of intermediate (or innominate)terms, the breach of which may or may not give rise to a right to terminate depending on the consequences of the breach.As Lord Diplock put it:
除了条件条款和保证条款外，还存在第三类中间条款（intermediate terms），或者称作无名条款（innominate terms），对该等条款的违反是否使得守约方有权终止合同取决于违反该等条款所造成的后果。如Diplock勋爵所说：
“There are many…contractual undertakings…whichcannot be categorised as being “conditions” or “warranties”.Of such undertakings allthat can be predicated is that some breaches will and others will not give riseto an event which will deprive the party not in default of substantially thewhole benefit which it was intended that he should obtain from the contract.”
“有很多……合同内容……无法被归入‘条件条款’或‘保证条款’。对于这类合同内容，唯一可以确定的是，某些违反会造成实质上剥夺守约方本可预期从合同中获得的全部利益的后果，但某些违反却不会造成这样的后果。”
The use of the language “condition” is a strong indicationthat the parties intended to confer a power to terminate the contract if thereis a breach of such term. However, case law illustrates that the use of thelanguage “condition” is not conclusive. In Wickman[5] itwas a “condition” of a four-year distributorship agreement that the distributorshould visit six named customers once a week to solicit sales. The House ofLords held that the term was not a condition despite the express provision. The parties could not have intended thatfailure to make a single visit would entitle the other party to terminate the contract.More probably they had use the word “condition” in a non-technical sense, as in“conditions of sale”. Similarly, in Ricev Great Yarmouth BC[6]the Court of Appeal refused to allow the local council to terminate the contracteven though the contract provides that the council has a right to terminate forany breach.To impose the same draconian consequences uponany breach, however small, flies in the face of commercial common sense.
使用“条件条款”一词有力地表明合同的各方有意赋予守约方在该等条款被违反的情况下终止合同的权利。但是，判例法说明，使用“条件条款”一词的效果并不是绝对的。Wickman案中所涉的经销协议要求销售商每周派遣代表去六个潜在买方处推销产品，并规定该等条款为协议的“前提条件”。尽管有明文约定，但上议院认定该条款并不属于条件条款。上议院认为，合同双方的真实意思不可能是仅因为合同的一方某一次未能依约派遣代表就赋予另一方终止合同的权利。双方大概是在非技术层面使用“条件”一词的，比如“销售条件”。类似地，在Rice v Great Yarmouth BC案中，即使合同中约定地方管理机关（local council）有权因相对方的任何违约而终止合同，上诉法院仍然不认可地方管理机关有权按照该条款终止合同。不区分违约行为的严重性、就任何违约行为赋予一方解除合同的权利是不符合商业合理性的。
However, a right toterminate arises where it is expressly stated that one party shall be entitledto terminate in the event of some specified failure (using the above example -failure to make a visit).[7]
但是，如果明确约定在某一特定违约行为（沿用上述例子－未能依约派遣代表）发生的时候一方有权终止合同，则守约方有终止合同的权利。
An important point to note is that a breach ofcondition need not amount tofundamental breach. This is because contract law allows the parties to agreethat any failure to perform a particular obligation shall entitle the otherparty to terminate irrespective of the gravity of the consequences of thebreach. As such, a contractual power to terminate can properly be seen as aseparate basis on top of the right to terminate for substantial failure undergeneral law.
值得注意的一个重点是，（作为终止合同的依据，）违反条件条款不必达到根本违约的程度。这是因为合同法允许合同的当事方约定一方对某一项特定义务的不履行将使得另一方有权终止合同，而不论该等违约所造成后果的严重程度。据此，合同约定的终止权可以被视作在一般法（general law）中因根本违约而终止合同之外的一项独立的终止合同的依据。
Anticipatory breach
预期违约
An anticipatory breach occurs when a party by words or conductevinces an intention not to perform the contract (a renunciation); or disableshimself from performing the contract. The obligation which the default partyrefuses to perform must be one that goes to the root of the contract, i.e. itmust be an obligation which a failure of performance will have the effect of afundamental breach. If an actual breach of a certain term does not give rise toa right to terminate, there is no reason why an anticipatory breach should havesuch effect.
预期违约是指合同的一方通过言语或者行为表示出将不履行合同的意图（拒绝履行，renunciation），或者致使自己丧失履行合同的能力。违约方所拒绝履行的义务必须是合同项下的根本义务，即一旦违反就会构成根本违约的义务。原因在于，如果对合同某项条款的实际违反都不能导致守约方有权终止合同，那么没有理由对于该等条款的预期违反能起到使守约方有权终止合同的效果。
An anticipatory breach has no effect unless anduntil the innocent party accepts the repudiation. This is because there cannotbe an actual breach if the performance is not due. The innocent party’sinterest under the contract is not yet adversely affected by the renunciation.The justification for allowing a party to terminate in this case is thusdifferent from that under the first two bases.
预期违约仅在守约方接受了拒绝履行的意思表示时才产生效果。这是因为在履行期限还未届至时，不可能发生实际违约。守约方在合同项下享有的利益尚未因预期违约方的拒绝履行而受到不利影响。因此，在这种情况下，允许守约方终止合同的正当性依据与前文所述的两类依据不同。
In a case of anticipatory breach, an innocent partyshould be allowed to terminate because it ought to be entitled to make alternativearrangements if he knows the other party is not performing. Under this scenariotermination is a device that enhances certainty. In order for the innocentparty to make other arrangements he must be able to know that he need notrender counter performance if the default party subsequently changes his mindand decides to perform. That is achieved by giving the innocent party a rightto terminate before performance falls due.
在预期违约的情况下，守约方应被允许终止合同，因为在知道另一方将不履行合同的情况下，守约方应有权作出替代性安排。在这种情形下，终止权是保护守约方的合理预期的制度设计。为使守约方能够安心地作出其他安排，他必须能够确信，当预期违约方事后改变主意决定履行合同时，他无需履行对待给付义务。这一目的是通过赋予守约方在履行期限届至前终止合同的权利来加以实现的。
(英文撰稿：彭禧雯/Ellen Pang，北京大学法学学士、香港大学法律博士、牛津大学法律硕士。
中文翻译：石佳霖/Jialin Shi，北京大学法学学士，汇仲律师事务所律师。)
声明：本文观点仅供参考，不可视为汇仲律师事务所及其律师对有关问题出具的正式法律意见。如您有任何法律问题或需要法律意见，请与本所联系。
汇仲律师事务所的网址为：www.huizhonglaw.com
[1]LLB(Peking U), JD (HKU), BCL (Oxon).
[2]Associate, Hui Zhong LawFirm, Beijing. E-mail: shi.jialin@huizhonglaw.com
[3] Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 at847, per Lord Diplock.
[4] Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2QB 26 at 70.
[5] L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd [1974] AC 235.
[6] Rice v Great Yarmouth Borough Council (2001) 3 LGLR 4.
[7] The Span Terza (No. 2) [1984] 1 WLR 27.