依民法第262條，契約經解除前，解除權人喪失解除權，從而無債務不履行損害賠償請求權，契約經解除後，則享有此請求權，顯是評價矛盾。準此。似應廢除民法第262條，德國民法舊法第351條類同民法第262條，為排除上開評價矛盾，已被廢除。解除權行使之效果非契約自始無效，仍可維持契約解除前已發生之債務不履行損害賠償責任或瑕疵擔保責任。本於形成權理論、權利行使自由原則，從而再寬容債務人一履行債務機會之思維，契約經解除者，發生改造及免除效果。民法第260條所指損害賠償請求，非屬侵權行為損害賠償、信賴利益損害賠償請求權規範性質。無論在何種債務不履行類型，也無論關於契約解除效果如何之問題採何理論，民法第260條要非為避免各該債務不履行損害賠償制度之意旨落空，而令使解除權行使不妨礙各該損害賠償之請求，便為宣示契約解除（本）不妨礙之。德國現行民法條325條文義上完全同我國民法第260條，該條規定修正理由說明也明白表示，契約解除不應妨礙損害賠償之請求。

According to section 262 of Civil Code one party loss his right of
rescission and therefore has no claim for compensation of non-fulfillment of debt before rescission; but after the rescission he has right of the rescission und the claim for compensation of non-fulfillment of debt. It is a contradiction in valuation. Therefore section 262 of Civil Code should be abolishment. The rescission could not make the contract incipiently invalid. Therefore the contract could maintain the claim for compensation of non-fulfillment of debt and defect warranty liability occurred before the rescission. Upon the theory of formation right, freedom of right exercise and to allow the debtor one more chance to fulfill his obligation, it occur to the effect of restore to status
quo ante. The claim for compensation of section 260 of Civil Code is not the nature of torts liability and reliance damage liability. No matter what type of non-fulfillment of obligation is and how the effect of rescission is, section 260 of Civil Code is either to avoid that the claim for compensation of non-fulfillment of debt could not be realized or to avoid that rescission precludes form the claim for compensation of non-fulfillment of debt. Section 325 of German Civil Code is completely the same in meaning with Section 260 of Civil Code. It’s justification amendment clear that rescission should not preclude the claim for
compensation of non-Fulfillment of debt.