论保证合同与主合同文义冲突时保证责任承担方式的认定——以一则私募股权投资回购争议案为例

我国现行法律规定，对一般保证责任或是连带保证责任的区分，要看保证合同的文字约定。然而，若作为从合同的保证合同与主合同在文字约定上不一致甚至冲突时，则将囿于合同的相对性，而造成保证责任承担方式的认定难题。文章从一则涉及保证法律关系的私募股权回购争议案出发，通过对我国担保法与合同法相关案例与学术观点的考察，认为应当综合采用多种合同解释方法来解决保证合同与主合同的文义冲突问题，用诚信原则检验解释结论的合理性，并适时采用公平原则进行价值权衡，从而维护民商事活动交易的有序进行。

The Determination of the Modes of Suretyship when a Surety Contract Conflicts with the Underlying Contract:Taking a PE Repurchase Case as an Example

Under current legislation in China, the wording of terms in a surety contract is the key reference to determine whether the suretyship is general or joint and several. However, when the surety contract, as an ancillary contract, conflicts with the underlying contract, the court or the tribunal might encounter difficulties in determining the mode of suretyship due to the privacy of contract. Taking a PE case concerning shares-repurchasing disputes as an example, this paper scrutinizes relevant cases and views in Chinese contract law and guarantee law and advocates that various ways of interpretation should be used to solve this problem. In particular, the principle of good faith should be adopted to examine the result of interpretation, and principle of fairness should also be used to weigh the values where appropriate.