《中华人民共和国旅游法》第65条赋予了旅游者任意解除权，但是没有对合同解除后的清算规则作细致说明。该条款笼统地规定了合同解除后组团社应退还 “必要费用”以外的款项，但没有对“必要费用”的内涵作出解答，亦未明确其与约定赔偿的适用关系。法律规定的粗疏性使其具有较大的可解释空间，继而导致了司法适用的混乱，也无法为旅游合同当事人提供确切指引。因此有必要对旅游者任意解除合同案件的司法裁判现状加以审视，总结其中的问题、解决其中的难题。从而促进旅游者任意解除权清算制度的完善、维护司法的一致性和权威性。本文采用实证研究法对近6年间的100个司法判例进行了分析，总结了当前旅游者任意解除合同后的清算制度司法实践问题。主要有对旅游者任意解除合同的行为性质认定有误、必要费用的计算范围及举证标准不明确、对约定赔偿条款的效力认定不一、对旅游者请求剩余价款利息的裁判思路不一致等。考虑到法律的运行需要一定的稳定性，问题的解决首先应当在既有的法律规则中寻找方案。文章运用法解释学方法对包价旅游合同的性质争议进行了规范分析，反驳了买卖合同说、居间合同说等学说。重点比较了包价旅游合同与委托合同、承揽合同的异同，探索是否具有参照适用委托人任意解除权、定作人任意解除权清算制度的可能性。由于未能寻找到既有的解决方案，文章借鉴比较法的经验、结合中国实际，对旅游者任意解除合同后的清算问题提出了裁判建议。本文提出：约定赔偿条款的效力判定应当遵循统一标准，只有有效的约定条款才能在清算时优先适用。《旅游法》第65条中“必要费用”的计算标准应当根据合同解除时间及旅游者主观可归责性的不同有所区别，在行程开始后解除应当赔偿履行利益、旅游者对合同解除不存在主观过错时仅需赔偿信赖利益。旅游者请求剩余价款的资金占用利息具有正当性，利息的起算时间应当统一标准。个案中存在除任意解除外的其他法定解除事由时，应优先适用其他法定解除权的清算规则以维护合同秩序和旅游者利益。

Article 65 of the Tourism Law grants the traveler the right to cancel at will, but does not elaborate on the rules of liquidation after the cancellation of the contract. This article provides in general terms that the tour operator shall refund the amount other than the "necessary expenses" after the cancellation of the contract, but does not provide an answer to the connotation of "necessary expenses", nor does it clarify the applicable relationship between it and the agreed compensation. The roughness of the law makes it more open to interpretation, which in turn leads to confusion in judicial application and does not provide precise guidance for the parties to the travel contract. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the current situation of judicial decisions in cases of arbitrary cancellation of contract by tourists, to summarize the issues and solve the problems. In order to promote the perfection of the system of liquidation of the right of arbitrary cancellation of travelers, and to maintain the consistency and authority of the judiciary.This paper uses an empirical research method to analyze 100 judicial precedents in the past 6 years and summarizes the current problems of judicial application of the system of liquidation of tourist’s arbitrary termination. The main manifestations are the erroneous determination of the nature of the traveler‘s right of arbitrary discharge, the unclear scope of the calculation of necessary expenses and the standard of proof, the inconsistent determination of the validity of the agreed compensation clause, and the inconsistent adjudication ideas on the traveler‘s request for interest on the remaining price.Considering that the operation of the law requires a certain stability, the solution of the problem should first be found in the established legal rules. The article uses the method of legal interpretation to analyze the controversy of the nature of the package tour contract in a normative way, and refutes the doctrines of the contract of sale and purchase and the contract of agency. The article focuses on comparing the similarities and differences between the contract of package tour and the contract of commission and contracting, and explores whether there is a possibility of applying the system of liquidation by reference to the principal‘s at-will right of release and the fixer‘s at-will right of release.Since no existing solution can be found, the article draws on the experience of comparative law and the actual situation in China, and proposes a decision on the liquidation of the contract after the arbitrary termination by the traveler. The article proposes that: the validity of the contractual indemnity clause should be determined by a uniform standard, and only valid contractual clauses should be applied in the liquidation; the standard of calculation of "necessary expenses" in Article 65 of the Tourism Law should be different according to the time of cancellation and the subjective fault of the tourist, while only the interest of reliance should be compensated when the tour operator is not subjectively at fault for the cancellation ; the tour operator‘s request for interest on the remaining price is justified, and the time of calculation of interest should be standardized; if there are circumstances other than the arbitrary termination of the travel contract, the liquidation rules of the other legal termination shall be applied in order to maintain the order of the contract and the interests of the tourists.