技术委托开发合同履行义务认定及合同解除裁决路径
Determination of Performance Obligations in Technology Development Commissioned Contract and the Method of Award for Contract Rescission
关键词
Key Words
技术委托开发合同 履行义务 合同解除
Technology Development Commissioned Contract, Performance Obligations, Contract Rescission
裁判要旨
Principle of Judgment
虽然受托人的技术方案被认可为与合同约定的技术方案相关，但因其试验中的试验场地、试验物料等不符合合同约定的技术标准，技术委托开发合同委托人的合同目的无法实现，这构成技术委托开发合同的法定解除情形。
Although the technical scheme provided by the Contractor has been acknowledged as relevant to the contracted technical solution, the failure of the testing sites and testing materials to meet the agreed technical standards during the testing process results in the inability of the Principal's contractual objectives to be fulfilled, thereby giving rise to a statutory ground for rescission of the Technology Development Commissioned Contract.
典型意义
Significance
技术委托开发合同的主体在签订合同时应充分理解合同条款，对材料、设备、场地、开发流程、开发结果、技术指导模式以及数据取得等具体技术标准进行预估和判断，以避免产生委托开发偏离合同约定或者合同无法履行的情形，了解相应的法律风险并提前防范。
Parties entering into a Technology Development Commissioned Contract are required to possess a comprehensive understanding of the contract's terms upon signing the contract, making estimates and judgments regarding precise technical standards on materials, equipment, sites, development workflows, intended outcomes of the development project, modalities for technical instruction, and the attainment of data, all aimed at forestalling instances where the commissioned development deviates from the agreed-upon terms or renders the contract unperformable. Parties need to comprehend the corresponding legal risks and proactively implement safeguards against them.
基本案情
Basic Facts
20xx年6月，Y公司（委托方）与Z大学（受托方）签订了《技术委托开发合同》（以下简称《开发合同》），约定Y公司委托Z大学研究开发油田采出液相关课题。
《开发合同》第二条约定了研究开发课题的要求：（一）技术目标：开发适用于某油田的处理设备；探究各工况下的处理能力及处理效果。（二）技术内容：…… （三）技术方法和路线：……结合中试结果及核心技术，为处理量不低于 5000m³/d 的设备及流程的设计提供指导……。（四）技术要求及实施范围：……中试装置的处理能力10m³/h……。合同第三条约定了研发计划进度与时间目标为20xx年6月至9月，20xx年9月，设备进行中试，根据中试情况，项目进行验收。合同第七条约定了成果的交付与验收：（一）交付内容：受托方应按照本合同第二条的要求，向委托方交付研究成果，提交的材料包括但不限于以下内容：中试试验报告、处理量不低于 5000m³/d 的工程设备方案；合同还约定了交付的形式、数量、时间及地点和课题验收等。合同的有效期限为20xx年6月至同年12月。
合同签订后，Y公司依约向Z大学支付了开发经费。20xx年9月,Z大学向Y公司提交了中试试验报告和工程设备方案。
In June 20xx, Company Y (the Principal) entered into a "Technology Development Commissioned Contract" (hereinafter referred to as the "Development Contract") with University Z (the Contractor), wherein it was agreed that Company Y would commission University Z to research and develop a project related to oilfield produced fluid treatment.
Article 2 of the “Development Contract” stipulates that the requirements for researching and developing the project are as follows: (1) Technical Objectives: To develop processing equipment suitable for a specific oilfield; to investigate its processing capacity and effectiveness under various operating conditions. (2) Technical Content: ... (3) Technical Methods and Approach: ... Combine the results of pilot-scale tests and core technologies and provide guidance for the design of equipment and processes capable of handling a volume not less than 5000m³/d... (4) Technical Requirements and Implementation Scope: ...the processing capacity of the pilot facility is 10m³/h... Article 3 of the contract set forth a development plan with a timeline extending from June to September 20xx, culminating in a pilot testing of the equipment in September 20xx. Based on the pilot test results, the project would proceed to its acceptance phase. Article 7 detailed the delivery and acceptance of the project results: (1) Delivery Contents: The Contractor shall deliver research findings to the Principal in accordance with the requirements outlined in Article 2, including but not limited to a pilot test report and an engineering equipment proposal capable of handling a volume no less than 5000m³/d. The contract further specified the form, quantity, time, and location of delivery, as well as the criteria for project acceptance. The contract was valid from June to December 20xx.
After the contract was signed, Company Y paid for development funding to University Z as agreed. In September 20xx, University Z submitted a pilot test report and the engineering equipment proposal to Company Y.
仲裁请求
Arbitration Claim
Y公司认为Z大学未进行案涉的中试试验，也未交付约定的中试试验报告，合同目的无法实现，遂向上海仲裁委员会提出仲裁申请，请求仲裁庭裁决解除双方签订的合同，Z大学向其返还已支付的开发经费、赔偿损失并赔偿因本案所支付的律师费、仲裁费等。
Company Y asserted that University Z failed to conduct the stipulated pilot test, nor did it deliver the agreed-upon pilot test reports, resulting in the impossibility of achieving the contractual objectives. Consequently, Company Y applied to the Shanghai Arbitration Commission for arbitration, requesting that the arbitral tribunal decide to rescind the contract between the two parties. Further, Company Y sought an award compelling University Z to refund the development funds already paid, compensate for losses incurred, and cover attorneys' fees and arbitration fees, among other expenses associated with this case.
争议焦点
Focus of Dispute
Z大学是否已完全履行案涉合同义务。
Whether University Z has fully performed its contractual obligations involved in the case.
当事人意见
Opinions of The Parties Concerned
Y公司认为，Z大学于H地完成的试验不是案涉合同约定的试验其一，H地不属于案涉合同约定的某油田范围；其二，Z大学完成的S试验设备不是合同约定的设备,合同附件约定中试装置的处理能力10m³/h，而试验报告载明：于20xx年9月X日，处理为2m³/h。
Z大学认为，Z大学已提交了不低于5000m³/d的工程设备方案及技术交流资料，Z大学于某油田完成的中试试验及试验报告。其一，Z大学中试试验报告题目与合同约定的项目相符，试验报告就是对案涉项目处理测试而形成的报告；其二，S装置符合合同约定的中试试验装置，合同约定的“10m³/h”是装置的处理能力，而非中试试验进行“10m³/h”的处理；其三，Y公司在Z公司进行试验过程中从未提出异议。
Company Y contended that the tests conducted by University Z at location H did not correspond to the testing requirements stipulated in the contract involved in the case. Firstly, location H does not fall within the scope of an oil field stipulated in the contract involved in the case. Secondly, the testing equipment S completed by University Z is not the equipment stipulated in the contract. As per the annex to the contract, the testing equipment is required to have a processing capacity of 10m³/h, whereas the Test Report states that on September X, 20xx, the processing capacity was only 2m³/h.
On the other hand, University Z maintained that it has indeed submitted an engineering equipment proposal capable of handling a volume not less than 5000m³/d, along with relevant technical exchange materials, and that it has carried out pilot-scale testing and provided the Test Report within the designated oilfield. Firstly, the title of University Z's pilot-scale test report aligns with the project specified in the contract, and the report itself documents the testing results pertinent to the subject project. Secondly, the equipment S conforms to the contractually agreed-upon pilot-scale test setup, and the "10m³/h" mentioned in the contract refers to the inherent processing capability of the equipment rather than mandating that the pilot-scale test must operate continuously at a rate of 10m³/h. Lastly, during the tests undertaken by University Z, Company Y never raised any objections.
仲裁庭意见
Opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal
合同明确约定了中试装置的处理能力，因其规定于“研究开发课题的要求”项下，不仅指试验装置的处理能力能够达到10m³/h，也包括中试试验以“10m³/h”为要求进行，而Z大学在试验中试验的标准与合同约定的技术要求不符。
虽然Z大学作出的《试验报告》中的试验物料、场地与合同技术方案约定的试验物料、场地不同，不完全符合合同的约定，《试验报告》成果与合同要求不完全一致，但是其与合同要求的案涉合同的技术相关。双方亦认可Z大学于实际地点H地完成试验的装置与本合同约定范围内的试验技术相似,部分试验数据仍有利用价值。故仲裁庭认为，Z大学部分履行但未完全履行合同约定的义务，构成违约。
综上，仲裁庭认为，本案合同的履行构成民法典第五百六十三条第四项“当事人一方迟延履行债务或者有其他违约行为致使不能实现合同目的”的法定解除情形。
The contract stipulates the processing capacity of the pilot plant under the "requirements for researching and developing the project". It not only means that the processing capacity of the pilot plant can reach 10m³/h, but that the pilot test should be carried out under the condition of "10m³/h". However, the standards used by University Z during the test were inconsistent with the technical requirements stipulated in the contract.
Although the test materials and sites in the “Test Report” issued by University Z are different from those specified in the technical plan of the contract and do not fully comply with the contract, and the results of the “Test Report” are not completely consistent with the contract requirements, they are relevant to the required technical aspects of the contract involved. Both parties recognized that the test plants used by University Z to complete the test at the actual location H are similar to the test technology within the scope of this contract, and some test data are still valuable. Therefore, the arbitral tribunal held that University Z did not fully perform its obligations under the contract, which constituted a breach of contract.
In conclusion, the arbitral tribunal held that the performance of the contract involved in the case constituted statutory rescission of Section 4, Article 563 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, which states that "one of the parties delays their performance of the obligation or has otherwise acted in breach of the contract, thus makes it impossible for the purpose of the contract to be achieved".
裁决结果
Award
解除《开发合同》；仲裁庭根据Y公司所做工作及其与履行合同的关联度，对于返还合同价款和资金占用费用的请求，部分予以支持；对缺乏证据证明的赔偿经济损失的请求，仲裁庭不予支持；关于本案仲裁费、律师费的承担，仲裁庭结合本案案情及裁决结果，由双方当事人按比例承担。
The “Development Contract” was rescinded; the arbitral tribunal partially supported Company Y's request for the return of the payment and capital occupation fees based on the work it has done and its relevance to the performance of the contract. However, the tribunal did not support the request for compensation for economic losses due to insufficient evidence presented. Regarding the arbitration fees and legal expenses in this case, the Arbitration Tribunal, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the outcome of the award, decided that both parties should bear these costs in proportionate shares.
案件评析
Case Analysis
法定解除，指合同生效后，没有履行或者完全履行完毕前，当事人在法律规定的解除条件出现时，行使解除权而使合同关系消灭。我国合同的法定解除被规定于《民法典》第五百六十三条，也即“有下列情形之一的，当事人可以解除合同：（一）因不可抗力致使不能实现合同目的；（二）在履行期限届满前，当事人一方明确表示或者以自己的行为表明不履行主要债务；（三）当事人一方迟延履行主要债务，经催告后在合理期限内仍未履行；（四）当事人一方迟延履行债务或者有其他违约行为致使不能实现合同目的；（五）法律规定的其他情形。对于以持续履行的债务为内容的不定期合同，当事人可以随时解除合同，但是应当在合理期限之前通知对方。”其中，第一项属于因不可抗力的法定解除，第二至四项属于因违约的法定解除，第五项属于其他法定解除。第四项规定包括了两种情形，分别是当事人一方迟延履行债务致使不能实现合同目的，以及有其他违约行为致使不能实现合同目的。实践当中，一般的法定解除特别是违约解除在技术合同纠纷中较为常见, 而能否实现合同目的是当事人的主要争议之一。判断能否实现合同目的通常可以考虑以下情形：（1）违约行为是否导致一方当事人基于合同产生的期待利益消灭，但另一方当事人并未预见且不可能合理预见该结果的除外。（2）当事人违反的义务是否属于合同中的实质性约定。（3）当事人一方对义务的违反是否导致另一方对其将来的履行失去信赖。例如，一方当事人承担分期履行义务，在某一次先履行中出现并非微不足道的瑕疵，且依据合理推测将在接下来的履行中重复发生瑕疵。此时，即使先履行中出现的瑕疵本身并不足以解除合同，但另一方当事人仍可以解除合同。（4）合同解除是否导致违反义务的当事人因已经作出的准备或者履行而遭受不相称的损失。
本案中，Y公司和Z大学签订的《开发合同》第二条第四款明确约定，技术要求为水处理中试装置的处理能力10m³/h，水出口满足采油厂具体项目的指标要求。由于该条款规定于“研究开发课题的要求”之下，所以该约定不仅指试验装置的水处理能力能够达到10m³/h，也包括中试试验以“10m³/h”为要求进行。但Z大学提供的《试验报告》表明，该次试验的标准为“2m³/h连续运行”，这与合同约定的技术要求存在不符。与此同时，《开发合同》还规定，Y公司与Z大学的项目验收时间为20xx年9月，案涉合同有效期为20xx年6月至同年12月，但截至20xx年12月31日，Z大学未全面完成案涉合同约定的义务，也未在Y公司要求的期限提供试验报告与工程设备方案报告。此外，根据庭审情况，双方均无意愿继续进行试验。Z大学的行为导致Y公司“在约定期限内取得符合技术要求的课题成果”的合同目的已无法达成。因此，案涉合同的履行构成《民法典》第五百六十三条第四项“当事人一方迟延履行债务或者有其他违约行为致使不能实现合同目的”的法定解除情形，应当予以解除。除了合同是否构成法定解除的判断外，在实践中，合同被法定解除前后可能还存在以下需要注意的问题。第一，基于合同的相对性，对于除了当事人之外还存在约定有第三方权利义务的合同能否解除应谨慎考量。第二，实践中可能出现尽管合同目的无法实现，但当事人已经部分履行且履行内容与合同相关的情况。对此，《民法典》第五百六十六条规定，合同解除后，尚未履行的，终止履行；已经履行的，根据履行情况和合同性质，当事人可以请求恢复原状或者采取其他补救措施，并有权请求赔偿损失。合同因违约解除的，解除权人可以请求违约方承担违约责任，但是当事人另有约定的除外。例如本案中，Z大学虽然并未全部按照合同约定履行，但是向Y公司提供了不同级别指标的技术方案和试验报告，并到Y公司处进行技术交流，且双方庭审时亦均认可试验方案与合同范围内的技术方案相关。此时通常不应要求Z大学返还全部经费，而是考虑Z大学为履行案涉合同付出的人力成本、资金成本以及已经向申请人提供的工作成果，酌情认定Z大学应向Y公司返还的经费数额。第三，关于仲裁费和律师费的承担。通常来说，除非当事人另有约定，仲裁费原则上由败诉方承担，当事人部分胜诉，部分败诉的，由仲裁庭根据当事人仲裁请求得到支持的比例、责任大小酌情确定各方承担的比例。
技术合同是技术交易的法律形式，关系技术交易的稳定性，技术委托开发合同是技术开发合同的常见种类。由于技术委托开发具有特殊的交易风险，因此我国《民法典》对技术合同当事人的权利义务做出了相关规定。但基于技术委托开发合同的复杂性，当事人往往在合同中作出了更细化的约定并制定了配套的技术标准，这同样是委托人与研究开发人的义务来源依据。通常来说，委托人应当按照合同约定，履行支付研究开发经费和报酬，提供技术资料，提出研究开发要求，完成协作事项，接受研究开发成果等义务。研究开发人也应当按照合同约定，履行制定和实施研究开发计划，合理使用研究开发经费，按期完成研究开发工作，交付研究开发成果，提供有关的技术资料和必要的技术指导，帮助委托人掌握研究开发成果等义务。
Statutory rescission refers to the situation where, after a contract takes effect but before it is fully performed, a party exercises their right to rescind the contract upon the occurrence of legally prescribed conditions, thereby extinguishing the contractual relationship. In China, statutory rescission of contracts is stipulated under Article 563 of the Civil Code, which states that: “The parties may rescind the contract under any of the following circumstances: (1) the purpose of a contract is not able to be achieved due to force majeure; (2) prior to expiration of the period of performance, one of the parties explicitly expresses or indicates by their act that they will not perform the principal obligation; (3) one of the parties delays their performance of the principal obligation and still fails to perform it within a reasonable period of time after being demanded; (4) one of the parties delays their performance of the obligation or has otherwise acted in breach of the contract, thus makes it impossible for the purpose of the contract to be achieved; or (5) any other circumstance as provided by law. For a contract under which the debtor is required to continuously perform an obligation for an indefinite period of time, the parties thereto may rescind the contract at any time, provided that the other party shall be notified within a reasonable period of time.” Among them, the first item is a statutory rescission due to force majeure, the second to fourth are statutory rescission due to breach of contract, and the fifth item belongs to other statutory rescission. The fourth provision covers two situations: the inability to achieve the purpose of the contract is either caused by one of the parties concerned delaying the performance of its debts or by other breaches of the contract. In practice, statutory rescission, especially rescission due to breach of contract, is relatively common in technical contract disputes, and one of the main disputes between the parties concerned is whether the purpose of the contract can be achieved. The following circumstances can usually be considered to determine whether the purpose of the contract can be achieved: (1) Whether the breach of contract leads to the elimination of the expected benefits generated based on the contract by one of the parties concerned, except where the other party concerned did not foresee and could not reasonably foresee the result. (2) Whether the obligation breached by the parties concerned is a substantive agreement in the contract. (3) Whether a party's breach of their obligations undermines the other party's trust in future performance, e.g., where one party has a series of installment obligations and a non-trivial defect occurs in an initial performance, which, based on reasonable inference, is likely to recur in subsequent performances. In such cases, even if the initial defect itself does not warrant contract termination, the other party may still choose to rescind the contract. (4) Whether contract termination would cause disproportionately severe losses to the breaching party given the preparations made or performance already rendered by them.
In this case, as stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the “Development Contract” signed between Company Y and University Z, the technical requirement is that the processing capacity of the pilot plant should be 10m³/h and that the fluid outlet should meet the indicator requirements of the specific projects of the oil extraction plant. Since this clause is stipulated under the "requirements for researching and developing the project", it not only means that the processing capacity of the pilot plant can reach 10m³/h, but that the pilot test should be carried out under the condition of "10m³/h". However, the "Test Report" provided by University Z showed that the test standard was "2m³/h", inconsistent with the technical requirements in the contract. At the same time, the “Development Contract” stipulates that the project acceptance time should be September 20xx, and the contract involved in the case is valid from June to December 20xx. However, as of December 31, 20xx, University Z did not fully fulfill its obligations under the contract, nor did it provide test reports or engineering equipment plan reports within the time limit required by Company Y. In addition, according to the court trial, neither party is willing to continue the trial. The behavior of University Z has led to the failure to achieve Company Y’s contractual purpose of “obtaining project results that meet technical requirements within the agreed time limit”. Therefore, the performance of the contract involved in the case constituted statutory rescission “one of the parties delays their performance of the obligation or has otherwise acted in breach of the contract, thus makes it impossible for the purpose of the contract to be achieved;” under paragraph 4, Article 563 of the Civil Code and should be rescinded. In addition to the judgment of whether the contract constitutes statutory rescission, the following issues may need attention in practice before and after the contract is legally rescinded: Firstly, based on the principle of contractual relativity, careful consideration should be given to whether a contract that involves rights and obligations for third parties, in addition to the parties involved, can be rescinded. Secondly, in practice, there may be situations where despite the impossibility of achieving the contractual purpose, the parties have partially fulfilled their obligations, and the fulfillment is related to the contract. In this regard, Article 566 of the Civil Code stipulates that after a contract is rescinded, where the obligations have not yet been performed, the performance shall cease; where the obligations have already been performed, the parties may, taking into account the performance status and the nature of the contract, request restoration to the original status or other remedial measures taken, and have the right to request for compensation for losses. Where a contract is rescinded due to a default, the party with the right to rescind the contract may request the breaching party to bear default liability, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. For instance, in this case, although University Z did not fully perform the contract, it provided Company Y with technical proposals and test reports of various levels, and engaged in technical exchanges at Company Y's premises. Furthermore, during the court hearing, both parties acknowledged the relevance of the test plan to the technical proposals within the scope of the contract. In such a situation, it is generally inappropriate to demand University Z to return all the funds. Instead, it is advisable to consider the human resources, financial costs, and work results already provided to the claimant (Company Y) by University Z when fulfilling the contract. The amount of funds to be refunded to Company Y should be determined at the circumstances' discretion. Third, regarding the bearing of arbitration fees and attorneys' fees. Generally speaking, arbitration fees are typically borne by the party who loses the case unless otherwise agreed by the parties. In cases where both parties partially win and partially lose, the arbitration tribunal will determine the proportion of fees to be borne by each party at its discretion, based on factors such as the degree of support for each party's arbitration request and the extent of their respective liabilities.
Technical Contracts represent the legal form of technology transactions, which are crucial for maintaining the stability of such transactions. Among the common types of technical contracts, the technology development commissioned contract stands out as a prevalent form. Since commissioned technology development is associated with unique transaction risks, the Civil Code has relevant provisions regarding the rights and obligations of the parties involved in technical contracts. However, due to the complexity of technology development commissioned contracts, the parties often make more detailed agreements in the contract and establish corresponding technical standards. These provisions serve as the basis for the obligations of both the Contractor and the Principal. Generally, the Principal is expected to fulfill obligations as per the contract terms, including paying research and development expenses and compensation, providing technical materials, outlining research and development requirements, completing collaborative tasks, and accepting the research and development outcomes. The Contractor is also expected to fulfill obligations as per the contract terms. These obligations typically include devising and executing research and development plans, using research and development funds judiciously, completing research and development tasks on schedule, delivering research and development outcomes, providing relevant technical materials and necessary technical guidance, and assisting the Principal in understanding the research and development outcomes.
免责重申：本案例系上海仲裁委员会对相关案件进行的整理与编辑，不代表机构观点，不构成法律咨询意见。
Disclaimer: This case is the compilation and editing of relevant cases by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission. It does not represent the views of the institution nor constitute legal advice.
英文版本仅为示例翻译，如中英文版本有任何差异，以中文版本为准。
The English version is a courtesy translation only. If there is any discrepancy between the Chinese and English version, the Chinese version prevails.
往期案例回顾：
SHAC
立案地址
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦7楼 电话：021-52921235
网址：www.accsh.org 邮箱：shac@accsh.org
上海金融仲裁院
上海市东园路18号中国金融信息中心18楼 电话：021-68889201
上海国际航运仲裁院 | 上海知识产权仲裁院
上海市北苏州路88号中美金融信托大厦18楼 电话：021-62681688
上海建设工程仲裁院 | 一般民商事部
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦23楼 电话：021-52920022
Determination of Performance Obligations in Technology Development Commissioned Contract and the Method of Award for Contract Rescission
关键词
Key Words
技术委托开发合同 履行义务 合同解除
Technology Development Commissioned Contract, Performance Obligations, Contract Rescission
裁判要旨
Principle of Judgment
虽然受托人的技术方案被认可为与合同约定的技术方案相关，但因其试验中的试验场地、试验物料等不符合合同约定的技术标准，技术委托开发合同委托人的合同目的无法实现，这构成技术委托开发合同的法定解除情形。
Although the technical scheme provided by the Contractor has been acknowledged as relevant to the contracted technical solution, the failure of the testing sites and testing materials to meet the agreed technical standards during the testing process results in the inability of the Principal's contractual objectives to be fulfilled, thereby giving rise to a statutory ground for rescission of the Technology Development Commissioned Contract.
典型意义
Significance
技术委托开发合同的主体在签订合同时应充分理解合同条款，对材料、设备、场地、开发流程、开发结果、技术指导模式以及数据取得等具体技术标准进行预估和判断，以避免产生委托开发偏离合同约定或者合同无法履行的情形，了解相应的法律风险并提前防范。
Parties entering into a Technology Development Commissioned Contract are required to possess a comprehensive understanding of the contract's terms upon signing the contract, making estimates and judgments regarding precise technical standards on materials, equipment, sites, development workflows, intended outcomes of the development project, modalities for technical instruction, and the attainment of data, all aimed at forestalling instances where the commissioned development deviates from the agreed-upon terms or renders the contract unperformable. Parties need to comprehend the corresponding legal risks and proactively implement safeguards against them.
基本案情
Basic Facts
20xx年6月，Y公司（委托方）与Z大学（受托方）签订了《技术委托开发合同》（以下简称《开发合同》），约定Y公司委托Z大学研究开发油田采出液相关课题。
《开发合同》第二条约定了研究开发课题的要求：（一）技术目标：开发适用于某油田的处理设备；探究各工况下的处理能力及处理效果。（二）技术内容：…… （三）技术方法和路线：……结合中试结果及核心技术，为处理量不低于 5000m³/d 的设备及流程的设计提供指导……。（四）技术要求及实施范围：……中试装置的处理能力10m³/h……。合同第三条约定了研发计划进度与时间目标为20xx年6月至9月，20xx年9月，设备进行中试，根据中试情况，项目进行验收。合同第七条约定了成果的交付与验收：（一）交付内容：受托方应按照本合同第二条的要求，向委托方交付研究成果，提交的材料包括但不限于以下内容：中试试验报告、处理量不低于 5000m³/d 的工程设备方案；合同还约定了交付的形式、数量、时间及地点和课题验收等。合同的有效期限为20xx年6月至同年12月。
合同签订后，Y公司依约向Z大学支付了开发经费。20xx年9月,Z大学向Y公司提交了中试试验报告和工程设备方案。
In June 20xx, Company Y (the Principal) entered into a "Technology Development Commissioned Contract" (hereinafter referred to as the "Development Contract") with University Z (the Contractor), wherein it was agreed that Company Y would commission University Z to research and develop a project related to oilfield produced fluid treatment.
Article 2 of the “Development Contract” stipulates that the requirements for researching and developing the project are as follows: (1) Technical Objectives: To develop processing equipment suitable for a specific oilfield; to investigate its processing capacity and effectiveness under various operating conditions. (2) Technical Content: ... (3) Technical Methods and Approach: ... Combine the results of pilot-scale tests and core technologies and provide guidance for the design of equipment and processes capable of handling a volume not less than 5000m³/d... (4) Technical Requirements and Implementation Scope: ...the processing capacity of the pilot facility is 10m³/h... Article 3 of the contract set forth a development plan with a timeline extending from June to September 20xx, culminating in a pilot testing of the equipment in September 20xx. Based on the pilot test results, the project would proceed to its acceptance phase. Article 7 detailed the delivery and acceptance of the project results: (1) Delivery Contents: The Contractor shall deliver research findings to the Principal in accordance with the requirements outlined in Article 2, including but not limited to a pilot test report and an engineering equipment proposal capable of handling a volume no less than 5000m³/d. The contract further specified the form, quantity, time, and location of delivery, as well as the criteria for project acceptance. The contract was valid from June to December 20xx.
After the contract was signed, Company Y paid for development funding to University Z as agreed. In September 20xx, University Z submitted a pilot test report and the engineering equipment proposal to Company Y.
仲裁请求
Arbitration Claim
Y公司认为Z大学未进行案涉的中试试验，也未交付约定的中试试验报告，合同目的无法实现，遂向上海仲裁委员会提出仲裁申请，请求仲裁庭裁决解除双方签订的合同，Z大学向其返还已支付的开发经费、赔偿损失并赔偿因本案所支付的律师费、仲裁费等。
Company Y asserted that University Z failed to conduct the stipulated pilot test, nor did it deliver the agreed-upon pilot test reports, resulting in the impossibility of achieving the contractual objectives. Consequently, Company Y applied to the Shanghai Arbitration Commission for arbitration, requesting that the arbitral tribunal decide to rescind the contract between the two parties. Further, Company Y sought an award compelling University Z to refund the development funds already paid, compensate for losses incurred, and cover attorneys' fees and arbitration fees, among other expenses associated with this case.
争议焦点
Focus of Dispute
Z大学是否已完全履行案涉合同义务。
Whether University Z has fully performed its contractual obligations involved in the case.
当事人意见
Opinions of The Parties Concerned
Y公司认为，Z大学于H地完成的试验不是案涉合同约定的试验其一，H地不属于案涉合同约定的某油田范围；其二，Z大学完成的S试验设备不是合同约定的设备,合同附件约定中试装置的处理能力10m³/h，而试验报告载明：于20xx年9月X日，处理为2m³/h。
Z大学认为，Z大学已提交了不低于5000m³/d的工程设备方案及技术交流资料，Z大学于某油田完成的中试试验及试验报告。其一，Z大学中试试验报告题目与合同约定的项目相符，试验报告就是对案涉项目处理测试而形成的报告；其二，S装置符合合同约定的中试试验装置，合同约定的“10m³/h”是装置的处理能力，而非中试试验进行“10m³/h”的处理；其三，Y公司在Z公司进行试验过程中从未提出异议。
Company Y contended that the tests conducted by University Z at location H did not correspond to the testing requirements stipulated in the contract involved in the case. Firstly, location H does not fall within the scope of an oil field stipulated in the contract involved in the case. Secondly, the testing equipment S completed by University Z is not the equipment stipulated in the contract. As per the annex to the contract, the testing equipment is required to have a processing capacity of 10m³/h, whereas the Test Report states that on September X, 20xx, the processing capacity was only 2m³/h.
On the other hand, University Z maintained that it has indeed submitted an engineering equipment proposal capable of handling a volume not less than 5000m³/d, along with relevant technical exchange materials, and that it has carried out pilot-scale testing and provided the Test Report within the designated oilfield. Firstly, the title of University Z's pilot-scale test report aligns with the project specified in the contract, and the report itself documents the testing results pertinent to the subject project. Secondly, the equipment S conforms to the contractually agreed-upon pilot-scale test setup, and the "10m³/h" mentioned in the contract refers to the inherent processing capability of the equipment rather than mandating that the pilot-scale test must operate continuously at a rate of 10m³/h. Lastly, during the tests undertaken by University Z, Company Y never raised any objections.
仲裁庭意见
Opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal
合同明确约定了中试装置的处理能力，因其规定于“研究开发课题的要求”项下，不仅指试验装置的处理能力能够达到10m³/h，也包括中试试验以“10m³/h”为要求进行，而Z大学在试验中试验的标准与合同约定的技术要求不符。
虽然Z大学作出的《试验报告》中的试验物料、场地与合同技术方案约定的试验物料、场地不同，不完全符合合同的约定，《试验报告》成果与合同要求不完全一致，但是其与合同要求的案涉合同的技术相关。双方亦认可Z大学于实际地点H地完成试验的装置与本合同约定范围内的试验技术相似,部分试验数据仍有利用价值。故仲裁庭认为，Z大学部分履行但未完全履行合同约定的义务，构成违约。
综上，仲裁庭认为，本案合同的履行构成民法典第五百六十三条第四项“当事人一方迟延履行债务或者有其他违约行为致使不能实现合同目的”的法定解除情形。
The contract stipulates the processing capacity of the pilot plant under the "requirements for researching and developing the project". It not only means that the processing capacity of the pilot plant can reach 10m³/h, but that the pilot test should be carried out under the condition of "10m³/h". However, the standards used by University Z during the test were inconsistent with the technical requirements stipulated in the contract.
Although the test materials and sites in the “Test Report” issued by University Z are different from those specified in the technical plan of the contract and do not fully comply with the contract, and the results of the “Test Report” are not completely consistent with the contract requirements, they are relevant to the required technical aspects of the contract involved. Both parties recognized that the test plants used by University Z to complete the test at the actual location H are similar to the test technology within the scope of this contract, and some test data are still valuable. Therefore, the arbitral tribunal held that University Z did not fully perform its obligations under the contract, which constituted a breach of contract.
In conclusion, the arbitral tribunal held that the performance of the contract involved in the case constituted statutory rescission of Section 4, Article 563 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, which states that "one of the parties delays their performance of the obligation or has otherwise acted in breach of the contract, thus makes it impossible for the purpose of the contract to be achieved".
裁决结果
Award
解除《开发合同》；仲裁庭根据Y公司所做工作及其与履行合同的关联度，对于返还合同价款和资金占用费用的请求，部分予以支持；对缺乏证据证明的赔偿经济损失的请求，仲裁庭不予支持；关于本案仲裁费、律师费的承担，仲裁庭结合本案案情及裁决结果，由双方当事人按比例承担。
The “Development Contract” was rescinded; the arbitral tribunal partially supported Company Y's request for the return of the payment and capital occupation fees based on the work it has done and its relevance to the performance of the contract. However, the tribunal did not support the request for compensation for economic losses due to insufficient evidence presented. Regarding the arbitration fees and legal expenses in this case, the Arbitration Tribunal, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the outcome of the award, decided that both parties should bear these costs in proportionate shares.
案件评析
Case Analysis
法定解除，指合同生效后，没有履行或者完全履行完毕前，当事人在法律规定的解除条件出现时，行使解除权而使合同关系消灭。我国合同的法定解除被规定于《民法典》第五百六十三条，也即“有下列情形之一的，当事人可以解除合同：（一）因不可抗力致使不能实现合同目的；（二）在履行期限届满前，当事人一方明确表示或者以自己的行为表明不履行主要债务；（三）当事人一方迟延履行主要债务，经催告后在合理期限内仍未履行；（四）当事人一方迟延履行债务或者有其他违约行为致使不能实现合同目的；（五）法律规定的其他情形。对于以持续履行的债务为内容的不定期合同，当事人可以随时解除合同，但是应当在合理期限之前通知对方。”其中，第一项属于因不可抗力的法定解除，第二至四项属于因违约的法定解除，第五项属于其他法定解除。第四项规定包括了两种情形，分别是当事人一方迟延履行债务致使不能实现合同目的，以及有其他违约行为致使不能实现合同目的。实践当中，一般的法定解除特别是违约解除在技术合同纠纷中较为常见, 而能否实现合同目的是当事人的主要争议之一。判断能否实现合同目的通常可以考虑以下情形：（1）违约行为是否导致一方当事人基于合同产生的期待利益消灭，但另一方当事人并未预见且不可能合理预见该结果的除外。（2）当事人违反的义务是否属于合同中的实质性约定。（3）当事人一方对义务的违反是否导致另一方对其将来的履行失去信赖。例如，一方当事人承担分期履行义务，在某一次先履行中出现并非微不足道的瑕疵，且依据合理推测将在接下来的履行中重复发生瑕疵。此时，即使先履行中出现的瑕疵本身并不足以解除合同，但另一方当事人仍可以解除合同。（4）合同解除是否导致违反义务的当事人因已经作出的准备或者履行而遭受不相称的损失。
本案中，Y公司和Z大学签订的《开发合同》第二条第四款明确约定，技术要求为水处理中试装置的处理能力10m³/h，水出口满足采油厂具体项目的指标要求。由于该条款规定于“研究开发课题的要求”之下，所以该约定不仅指试验装置的水处理能力能够达到10m³/h，也包括中试试验以“10m³/h”为要求进行。但Z大学提供的《试验报告》表明，该次试验的标准为“2m³/h连续运行”，这与合同约定的技术要求存在不符。与此同时，《开发合同》还规定，Y公司与Z大学的项目验收时间为20xx年9月，案涉合同有效期为20xx年6月至同年12月，但截至20xx年12月31日，Z大学未全面完成案涉合同约定的义务，也未在Y公司要求的期限提供试验报告与工程设备方案报告。此外，根据庭审情况，双方均无意愿继续进行试验。Z大学的行为导致Y公司“在约定期限内取得符合技术要求的课题成果”的合同目的已无法达成。因此，案涉合同的履行构成《民法典》第五百六十三条第四项“当事人一方迟延履行债务或者有其他违约行为致使不能实现合同目的”的法定解除情形，应当予以解除。除了合同是否构成法定解除的判断外，在实践中，合同被法定解除前后可能还存在以下需要注意的问题。第一，基于合同的相对性，对于除了当事人之外还存在约定有第三方权利义务的合同能否解除应谨慎考量。第二，实践中可能出现尽管合同目的无法实现，但当事人已经部分履行且履行内容与合同相关的情况。对此，《民法典》第五百六十六条规定，合同解除后，尚未履行的，终止履行；已经履行的，根据履行情况和合同性质，当事人可以请求恢复原状或者采取其他补救措施，并有权请求赔偿损失。合同因违约解除的，解除权人可以请求违约方承担违约责任，但是当事人另有约定的除外。例如本案中，Z大学虽然并未全部按照合同约定履行，但是向Y公司提供了不同级别指标的技术方案和试验报告，并到Y公司处进行技术交流，且双方庭审时亦均认可试验方案与合同范围内的技术方案相关。此时通常不应要求Z大学返还全部经费，而是考虑Z大学为履行案涉合同付出的人力成本、资金成本以及已经向申请人提供的工作成果，酌情认定Z大学应向Y公司返还的经费数额。第三，关于仲裁费和律师费的承担。通常来说，除非当事人另有约定，仲裁费原则上由败诉方承担，当事人部分胜诉，部分败诉的，由仲裁庭根据当事人仲裁请求得到支持的比例、责任大小酌情确定各方承担的比例。
技术合同是技术交易的法律形式，关系技术交易的稳定性，技术委托开发合同是技术开发合同的常见种类。由于技术委托开发具有特殊的交易风险，因此我国《民法典》对技术合同当事人的权利义务做出了相关规定。但基于技术委托开发合同的复杂性，当事人往往在合同中作出了更细化的约定并制定了配套的技术标准，这同样是委托人与研究开发人的义务来源依据。通常来说，委托人应当按照合同约定，履行支付研究开发经费和报酬，提供技术资料，提出研究开发要求，完成协作事项，接受研究开发成果等义务。研究开发人也应当按照合同约定，履行制定和实施研究开发计划，合理使用研究开发经费，按期完成研究开发工作，交付研究开发成果，提供有关的技术资料和必要的技术指导，帮助委托人掌握研究开发成果等义务。
Statutory rescission refers to the situation where, after a contract takes effect but before it is fully performed, a party exercises their right to rescind the contract upon the occurrence of legally prescribed conditions, thereby extinguishing the contractual relationship. In China, statutory rescission of contracts is stipulated under Article 563 of the Civil Code, which states that: “The parties may rescind the contract under any of the following circumstances: (1) the purpose of a contract is not able to be achieved due to force majeure; (2) prior to expiration of the period of performance, one of the parties explicitly expresses or indicates by their act that they will not perform the principal obligation; (3) one of the parties delays their performance of the principal obligation and still fails to perform it within a reasonable period of time after being demanded; (4) one of the parties delays their performance of the obligation or has otherwise acted in breach of the contract, thus makes it impossible for the purpose of the contract to be achieved; or (5) any other circumstance as provided by law. For a contract under which the debtor is required to continuously perform an obligation for an indefinite period of time, the parties thereto may rescind the contract at any time, provided that the other party shall be notified within a reasonable period of time.” Among them, the first item is a statutory rescission due to force majeure, the second to fourth are statutory rescission due to breach of contract, and the fifth item belongs to other statutory rescission. The fourth provision covers two situations: the inability to achieve the purpose of the contract is either caused by one of the parties concerned delaying the performance of its debts or by other breaches of the contract. In practice, statutory rescission, especially rescission due to breach of contract, is relatively common in technical contract disputes, and one of the main disputes between the parties concerned is whether the purpose of the contract can be achieved. The following circumstances can usually be considered to determine whether the purpose of the contract can be achieved: (1) Whether the breach of contract leads to the elimination of the expected benefits generated based on the contract by one of the parties concerned, except where the other party concerned did not foresee and could not reasonably foresee the result. (2) Whether the obligation breached by the parties concerned is a substantive agreement in the contract. (3) Whether a party's breach of their obligations undermines the other party's trust in future performance, e.g., where one party has a series of installment obligations and a non-trivial defect occurs in an initial performance, which, based on reasonable inference, is likely to recur in subsequent performances. In such cases, even if the initial defect itself does not warrant contract termination, the other party may still choose to rescind the contract. (4) Whether contract termination would cause disproportionately severe losses to the breaching party given the preparations made or performance already rendered by them.
In this case, as stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the “Development Contract” signed between Company Y and University Z, the technical requirement is that the processing capacity of the pilot plant should be 10m³/h and that the fluid outlet should meet the indicator requirements of the specific projects of the oil extraction plant. Since this clause is stipulated under the "requirements for researching and developing the project", it not only means that the processing capacity of the pilot plant can reach 10m³/h, but that the pilot test should be carried out under the condition of "10m³/h". However, the "Test Report" provided by University Z showed that the test standard was "2m³/h", inconsistent with the technical requirements in the contract. At the same time, the “Development Contract” stipulates that the project acceptance time should be September 20xx, and the contract involved in the case is valid from June to December 20xx. However, as of December 31, 20xx, University Z did not fully fulfill its obligations under the contract, nor did it provide test reports or engineering equipment plan reports within the time limit required by Company Y. In addition, according to the court trial, neither party is willing to continue the trial. The behavior of University Z has led to the failure to achieve Company Y’s contractual purpose of “obtaining project results that meet technical requirements within the agreed time limit”. Therefore, the performance of the contract involved in the case constituted statutory rescission “one of the parties delays their performance of the obligation or has otherwise acted in breach of the contract, thus makes it impossible for the purpose of the contract to be achieved;” under paragraph 4, Article 563 of the Civil Code and should be rescinded. In addition to the judgment of whether the contract constitutes statutory rescission, the following issues may need attention in practice before and after the contract is legally rescinded: Firstly, based on the principle of contractual relativity, careful consideration should be given to whether a contract that involves rights and obligations for third parties, in addition to the parties involved, can be rescinded. Secondly, in practice, there may be situations where despite the impossibility of achieving the contractual purpose, the parties have partially fulfilled their obligations, and the fulfillment is related to the contract. In this regard, Article 566 of the Civil Code stipulates that after a contract is rescinded, where the obligations have not yet been performed, the performance shall cease; where the obligations have already been performed, the parties may, taking into account the performance status and the nature of the contract, request restoration to the original status or other remedial measures taken, and have the right to request for compensation for losses. Where a contract is rescinded due to a default, the party with the right to rescind the contract may request the breaching party to bear default liability, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. For instance, in this case, although University Z did not fully perform the contract, it provided Company Y with technical proposals and test reports of various levels, and engaged in technical exchanges at Company Y's premises. Furthermore, during the court hearing, both parties acknowledged the relevance of the test plan to the technical proposals within the scope of the contract. In such a situation, it is generally inappropriate to demand University Z to return all the funds. Instead, it is advisable to consider the human resources, financial costs, and work results already provided to the claimant (Company Y) by University Z when fulfilling the contract. The amount of funds to be refunded to Company Y should be determined at the circumstances' discretion. Third, regarding the bearing of arbitration fees and attorneys' fees. Generally speaking, arbitration fees are typically borne by the party who loses the case unless otherwise agreed by the parties. In cases where both parties partially win and partially lose, the arbitration tribunal will determine the proportion of fees to be borne by each party at its discretion, based on factors such as the degree of support for each party's arbitration request and the extent of their respective liabilities.
Technical Contracts represent the legal form of technology transactions, which are crucial for maintaining the stability of such transactions. Among the common types of technical contracts, the technology development commissioned contract stands out as a prevalent form. Since commissioned technology development is associated with unique transaction risks, the Civil Code has relevant provisions regarding the rights and obligations of the parties involved in technical contracts. However, due to the complexity of technology development commissioned contracts, the parties often make more detailed agreements in the contract and establish corresponding technical standards. These provisions serve as the basis for the obligations of both the Contractor and the Principal. Generally, the Principal is expected to fulfill obligations as per the contract terms, including paying research and development expenses and compensation, providing technical materials, outlining research and development requirements, completing collaborative tasks, and accepting the research and development outcomes. The Contractor is also expected to fulfill obligations as per the contract terms. These obligations typically include devising and executing research and development plans, using research and development funds judiciously, completing research and development tasks on schedule, delivering research and development outcomes, providing relevant technical materials and necessary technical guidance, and assisting the Principal in understanding the research and development outcomes.
（案例提供人：上海仲裁委员会知识产权仲裁院助理法律顾问沈至诚）
(Provided by: Mr Shen Zhicheng, Assistant Legal Counsel, Shanghai Arbitration Court of Intellectual Property, Shanghai Arbitration Commission)
免责重申：本案例系上海仲裁委员会对相关案件进行的整理与编辑，不代表机构观点，不构成法律咨询意见。
Disclaimer: This case is the compilation and editing of relevant cases by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission. It does not represent the views of the institution nor constitute legal advice.
英文版本仅为示例翻译，如中英文版本有任何差异，以中文版本为准。
The English version is a courtesy translation only. If there is any discrepancy between the Chinese and English version, the Chinese version prevails.
往期案例回顾：
SHAC
立案地址
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦7楼 电话：021-52921235
网址：www.accsh.org 邮箱：shac@accsh.org
上海金融仲裁院
上海市东园路18号中国金融信息中心18楼 电话：021-68889201
上海国际航运仲裁院 | 上海知识产权仲裁院
上海市北苏州路88号中美金融信托大厦18楼 电话：021-62681688
上海建设工程仲裁院 | 一般民商事部
上海市威海路755号上海报业集团大厦23楼 电话：021-52920022