Based on the concern that solidary obligations will bring excessively severe legal consequences to debtors, both the academic and practical circles in China hold the position of explicitness on the occurrence of solidary obligations, that is, the occurrence of solidary obligations is based on either the expressed intention of the parties or the clear provisions of the law. However, the argument of explicitness is based on the dislocation of the constitutive requirements and the legal consequences of solidary obligations, and what explicitness emphasizes faces the dilemma of not being able to adapt to real life. For solidary obligations established by legal acts, the shackles of expressed intentions are often broken in many other legal systems, which is also reflected in the judicial practice in China. For solidary obligations established in accordance with legal provisions, the unreal solidary obligations or similar systems are often used to solve the dilemma of insufficient norms of written law in the comparative law and the concept of unreal solidary obligations has also been often used in many verdicts in China. But it is not a good measure for dealing with the inherent deficiencies of statutory law. In this view, it is necessary to give a limited interpretation to paragraph 2 of Article 518 of Chinese Civil Code for normative purposes, give full play to the function of the auxiliary norm of the second clause of paragraph 1 of Article 518, and take constitutive requirements as the basis for determining whether solidary obligations are established. |