合同约定解除权反映了合同自由的精神，然而合同自由并非毫无边界，若仅因约定的解除权条款中的事由得以成就，而不考虑违约行为的严重性便行使约定解除权，可能触及公平正义的底线。在我国当前的司法实践中，约定解除权限制的裁判存在很大问题，具体表现为：一是裁判依据混乱，在部分判决书中甚至出现了没有法律依据的现象；二是未坚持以约定解除权限制为例外的原则，混淆了约定解除权与法定解除权；三是存在同案不同判的问题，在同一案件中一审、二审法院的裁判结果不一致，或者是在相类似的案件中不同地区的法院的裁判结果不一致。本研究旨在通过对约定解除权限制的相关理论及司法现状的梳理，深入剖析约定解除权限制的司法裁判存在困境的根本原因，在此基础上，提出规范约定解除权限制的建议，以推动约定解除权限制相关规则的完善、提高司法裁判的准确性与高效性。

本研究主要分为四个部分：

第一部分是约定解除权的一般问题。本部分通过阐明约定解除权的概念、细述约定解除权与协议解除、附解除条件、法定解除权的区别，界定了什么是约定解除权。通过阐释约定解除权限制的含义与特征、说明约定解除权限制与解约事由未成就的本质区分，界定了什么是约定解除权限制。同时就约定解除权限制的必要性进行了翔实的论证，强调了约定解除权限制在民法理论和社会运作中的重要性。

第二部分是对司法实践的观察。本部分梳理了自《合同法》发布以来的大量有关约定解除权的判决书、裁定书，通过筛选和归纳，发现了截至目前法院限制当事人的约定解除权的五项重要理由。同时通过对具体案件的详细分析以及对同类型案件的比较分析，本部分证成了法官在约定解除权限制的裁判中正面临三重困境。

第三部分是对司法裁判陷入三重困境的根本原因的剖析。本部分论证了《九民纪要》第47条的法律根据存疑导致裁判依据混乱。论证了“不影响合同目的实现”标准的欠合理性导致了约定解除权与法定解除权相混淆。论证了司法衡量尺度的欠明确性加剧了同案不同判现象的出现。

第四部分意图在结合前文分析的基础上，回应“约定解除权的限制应当怎么做”的问题。一方面，完善“事由”的解释规则，在《民法典合同编通则司法解释》中载明《民法典》第562条第2款所称“事由”解释为具体事由，当事人约定解除合同的事由不具体则不发生解除权保留的效力。另一方面，完善轻微违约的司法认定标准，可以将违约解除分为三种类型：第一种，违反主合同义务；第二种，违反其他合同义务；第三种，解除合同将导致一方严重受损。分别制定三种情况下轻微违约的认定标准，标准的严格程度依次递减。

The concept of contractually agreed termination rights reflects the spirit of contractual freedom. However, this freedom is not without boundaries. Exercising termination rights solely based on the occurrence of contractually stipulated events, without considering the severity of the breach, may touch upon the baseline of fairness and justice. In current judicial practice in China, there are significant issues with the restrictions on contractually agreed termination rights. These issues manifest as follows: firstly, there is confusion in the legal basis for judgments, with some decisions even lacking legal grounding; secondly, the principle that restrictions on agreed termination rights should be an exception is not upheld, leading to a conflation of agreed termination rights with statutory termination rights; thirdly, there is a problem of inconsistent rulings, where different verdicts are reached in the first and second instance of the same case, or where courts in different regions reach different verdicts in similar cases. This study aims to comb through the relevant theories and the current state of judicial practice regarding the restrictions on agreed termination rights, to deeply analyze the fundamental reasons for the difficulties faced in judicial rulings on these restrictions, and to propose suggestions for standardizing the restrictions on agreed termination rights. This is to promote the perfection of related rules and to improve the accuracy and efficiency of judicial rulings.

This study is divided into four main parts:

Part One addresses the general issues of agreed termination rights. This section clarifies the concept of agreed termination rights, details the differences between agreed termination rights, consensual termination, conditional termination, and statutory termination rights, and defines what constitutes agreed termination rights. It also explains the meaning and characteristics of restrictions on agreed termination rights, and the essential distinction between restrictions on agreed termination rights and cause of termination has not occurred, thus defining what constitutes restrictions on agreed termination rights. Furthermore, it provides a detailed argument for the necessity of restrictions on agreed termination rights, emphasizing their importance in civil law theory and social operations.

Part Two is an observation of judicial practice. This section reviews a large number of judgments and rulings related to agreed termination rights since the promulgation of the Contract Law, and through selection and induction, identifies five important reasons that courts have used to limit parties’ agreed termination rights to date. Through a detailed analysis of specific cases and a comparative analysis of similar cases, this section demonstrates the triple dilemma faced by judges in judicial rulings on restrictions on agreed termination rights.

Part Three analyzes the fundamental reasons for the triple dilemma in judicial rulings. This section argues that doubts about the legal basis of Article 47 of the “Conference Minutes” have led to confusion in the legal basis for rulings. It demonstrates that the unreasonable nature of the “does not affect the purpose of the contract” restriction standard has led to a conflation of agreed termination rights with statutory termination rights. It also shows that the lack of clarity in judicial measurement standards has exacerbated the phenomenon of inconsistent rulings in similar cases.

Part Four intends to respond to the question of “how should the restrictions on agreed termination rights be implemented” based on the analysis in the previous sections. On the one hand, the rules of interpretation of "cause" should be improved, and the Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Civil Code on Contracts should state that the "cause" referred to in article 562, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code is to be interpreted as a specific cause, and that the parties' agreement to terminate the contract for a non-specific cause shall not have the effect of reserving the right of termination. On the other hand, to improve the criteria for judicial determination of minor breaches of contract, it is possible to categorize breaches of contract into three types: first, breach of the main contractual obligation; second, breach of other contractual obligations; and third, where rescission of the contract will result in serious damage to one of the parties. The criteria for recognizing minor breaches in each of the three cases should be formulated in decreasing order of strictness.