我国现行《合同法》第110条规定了守约方请求实际履行的例外情形。仔细思索这里存在法律漏洞，即合同不能履行但守约方又不主动解除合同时，债务人虽然可以依据此条来对抗债权人的实际履行主张，但其给付义务依然存在，合同易陷入僵局。近年来，这样的法律欠缺导致的合同僵局开始在司法实践中大量涌现，尤其在房屋租赁、买卖等长期性合同中屡见不鲜。审判机关应对此类纠纷的裁判意见各有不同。不少法院从《合同法》解释论的角度出发，直接赋予了违约方合同解除权，甚或者直接判决解除合同。

本文从《合同法》的体系出发，考虑到立法背景和合同法的固有价值，认为现有《合同法》并没有赋予违约方合同解除权，也没有在此类僵局中赋予裁判机构直接判决解除合同的权力。分析《合同法》情势变更原则、减损规则，本文认为上述规则仍然无法促进一些合同僵局的化解。要化解上述合同僵局，唯有赋予违约方主动权，但这种权利不同于守约方法定解除权，它必须要借助法院来实现，所以完整的可以称之为违约方诉请解除合同权。赋予违约方这种权利的正当性在于维护诚实信用原则，促进民法效率价值，它并不会破坏现有合同法体系，它的理论基础也并非比较法上的“效率违约论”。《民法典合同编》（二审稿）对违约方诉请解除合同做了规定，诉请条件大体合适，但认定违约方在合同僵局下不行使法定解除权构成“权利滥用”的表述不当。违约方诉请解除合同权的完整条件应当表述为“合同不能履行致使不能实现合同目的，有解除权的当事人不行使解除权，违反诚实信用原则对对方显失公平”。满足上述条件的，由人民法院或仲裁机构判定解除合同，但违约方应当承担的违约责任不受影响。本文认为违约方诉请解除合同的规定实际上类似于广义的司法解除，并且蕴含这样一种法理念，即私主体之间陷入僵局，公法主体来主持公道。这种法理念在中国法的历史进程和比较法合同解除制度都有体现，违约方诉请解除合同权也正是基于这种普遍的理念。它是对既定法律漏洞的一种妥善弥补，无论理论上还是实践中都需要这一规范，未来出台的《民法典合同编》中应当增加这一规定。

Article 110 of the “Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China”（hereinafter referred to as Contract Law）stipulates the exceptional circumstances in which the observant party requests actual performance. Consider carefully that there are legal loopholes, that is, when the contract cannot be performed, and the observant party does not actively terminate the contract, and the defaulting party may invoke this article to counter the actual performance claims of the observant, but his payment obligations still exist, so the contract is likely to fall into a deadlock. In recent years, the contract deadlock caused by such a lack of law has begun to emerge in large quantities in judicial practice, especially in long-term contracts such as house leases and sales contracts. Judicial authorities' opinions on such disputes are different. Many courts have directly given the defaulting party the right to terminate the contract, or even decided to terminate the contract directly, based on the interpretation of the Contract Law.

Starting from the "Contract Law" system and considering the legislative background and the inherent value of Contract Law, I think that the Contract Law does not give the defaulting party the right to rescind the contract, nor does it give the referee agency a power to terminate any contracts. Analyzing the principle of Change of Situation and Derogation rules in the Contract Law, I think that the above rules still cannot promote the resolution of contract deadlock. To resolve the "deadlock" state, the defaulting party must be given the initiative, but this right is different from the statutory right of cancellation, and it must be implemented with the help of a court, so we call it the right of the defaulting party to apply for termination of the contract. The legitimacy of granting this right to the defaulting party lies in maintaining the principle of good faith and promoting the value of efficiency of civil law. It will not destroy the existing contract law system, and its theoretical basis is not the "efficiency breach theory" in comparative law. The Civil Code Contract (draft of the second review) provides for the defaulting party's application for termination of the contract, and the application conditions are generally appropriate, but the statement that the observant party's failure to exercise the statutory right of termination under the contract deadlock constitutes an "abuse of rights" is inappropriate. The better conditions for the defaulting party to apply for the right to terminate the contract should be stated as "the failure to perform the contract results in the failure to achieve the purpose of the contract, and the party with the right to rescind does not exercise it, which is obviously unfair to the other party because of violation of the principle of good faith." If the above conditions are met, the people's court or arbitration agency will decide whether to terminate the contract, but the breach of contract liability of the defaulting party shall not be affected. I believe that the breach party's application for the termination of the contract is actually similar to broad-based judicial termination, and there is a legal idea that private parties are deadlocked and public law subjects preside over justice. This idea is reflected in the historical process of Chinese law and the comparative law contract termination system, and the defaulting party's right to apply for termination is also based on this universal idea. It is a proper remedy for the loopholes in the established law, and this norm is required both in theory and in practice, and it should be added in the future Civil Code Contracts.