德國債法從一八九六年(RGBl.S.195) 到二○○二年一月二日(BGBl.I S.42,ber.S.2909)經歷了一百多年，社會的變遷、科技的進步、歐盟的立法、國際的趨勢都使得這部法典非大幅修正不可。德國民法改革的主要目的之一，就是要使債務不履行的規範能夠透明化。主要的修正是體系上的變革。原先在債編各論中有關債務不履行的要件，均被納入了債編總論之中，義務的違反成為核心規定。於給付對債務人或任何人皆無可能時，就排除了給付請求權。羅馬法諺：不能之契約無效的原則因此被突破。依據新法第280條規定，債務人違反債之義務，債權人得請求賠償因此所生損害。此時推定債務人對義務之違反有過失，債權人於亦符合第286條之附加要件下，請求因給付遲延所生損害。於符合第281條、第282條或第283條之附加要件下，債權人得請求損害賠償代替給付。縱然在締約時給付業已不能，不影響契約之成立。但給付對債務人或任何人皆無可能時，就排除了給付請求權。債務人有可歸責事由者，有損害賠償代替給付的義務、債權人亦得請求信賴其可受領給付所為之支出，而依公平方式原得開銷者作為替代。債務人就原應交付之標的取得賠償物或有賠償請求權者，債權人可以請求債務人交付其作為賠償取得之物或移轉賠償請求權。就債務人遲延的要件與法律效果，修正的幅度不大。不良履行部分，不履行說代替瑕疵擔保說、瑕疵損害改成過失責任、受限制的債務不履行請求權。解除權的新規定，原則上解除不以可歸責事由為條件。在雙務契約中，債權人曾給債務人以給付或補為給付之相當期限，債務人對已屆至之債務仍未提出給付或未依債之本旨給付，債權人得解除契約，依情形給子或不需額外之期限。締約過失的明文化與行為基礎的干擾，均為法官法的明文化。

　　　　　The German Law of Obligations was promulgated in 1896 and has been for more than 100 years from now. All the factors such as the changes of the society, the development of the science and technology, the legislation in EU and the international environment, make it necessary for the civil code to have substantial modification. One of the major objectives of the new German Civil Code, is to reform the regulations concerning breach of duty, making the legal system transparent. The modification focused mainly on remodeling the whole system. The breach of duty regulations originally contained in particular articles of the civil code have been integrated into the general articles. Remedies for breach of duty become the central part of the new regulation. A claim for performance cannot be made in so far as it is impossible for the obligor or for anyone else to perform. Thus the new code gave up the "impossibilium nulla est obligatio." principle of old Roman law. If the obligor fails to perform his duties arising from the obligation, the oblige may claim compensation for the loss resulting from this breach. In this ca se, the obligor's fault will be assumed. The oblige may demand compensation for delay in performance if the additional requirement in § 286 is satisfied. The oblige may demand compensation in lieu of performance, if the additional requirements of § 281,§ 282 or §283 are satisfied. Even the impossibility for performance already exists at the time of contracting does not prevent the contract from being valid. A claim for performance though cannot be made in so far as it is impossible for the obligor or for anyone else to perform. If the obligor fails to perform his duties arising from the obligation, the oblige may claim compensation for the loss resulting from this breach. This does not apply, however, if the obligor is not deemed liable for the failure to per- form. The oblige may also demand reimbursement of the expenditure which he incurred in reasonable reliance on the performance, except where the expenditure would be paid for nothing even if the obligor had not breached his duty. If the obligor obtains a substitute for the object owed, the oblige may demand surrender of what has been received. There were no substantial modifications on Delay by the obligor. By a contract of sale the seller of a thing is bound to deliver the thing to the buyer and to transfer to him ownership of the thing. The guarantee of no defect doctrine has been replaced by non-performance principle. Deli- very of defected goods will only result in responsibilities, if the obligor has fault. The rights of oblige have been limited. If under a synallagmatic contract the obligor fails to perform when due or to perform in accordance with the contract, the oblige may terminate the contract, with or without giving the other party an additional grace period. Culpa in contrahendo and clausula rebus sic stantibus which were rules made by judge, have both now been incorporated into status.