试论违约精神损害赔偿—周明佳与马莉等摄影摄像服务合同纠纷上诉案

发布时间：2018-04-23 22:09

本文选题：违约责任 + 侵权责任　；参考：《沈阳师范大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：通说认为：“精神损害赔偿只存在于侵权责任中”。在合同法中，侵权责任和违约责任差异之一则是精神损害赔偿的有无。我国法律并不支持违约精神损害赔偿，在合同中出现精神损害，只能依据侵权获得赔偿。对于违约责任中能否适用精神损害赔偿，学术界也形成了两种不同的学说，即肯定说与否定说。笔者认为，我国应当对在合同中守约方的精神损害赔偿权予以保护，从而更好的维护合同当事人的利益，也完善我国精神利益的保护。本文通过司法实践中的一则案例及法院判决进行分析，归纳出该案例的两个争议焦点。通过对违约精神损害赔偿进行比较法上的考察，并分别介绍了英美法系大陆法系的法律规定。笔者鉴于对于我国法律规定和司法现状的分析与比较法上的借鉴，对本文的一审、二审裁判分别进行分析。一审判决回避了我国现在法律规定下赋予当事人的违约侵权之诉的选择权，没有解决二者之间的矛盾。二审法院的判决同时支持了三项请求权，但是该观点实际上还是违反责任竞合的理论，也没有找到支持请求权的法条或法理依据。笔者认为在现有的法律框架下，双方当事人若按照《合同法》第113条约定了精神损害赔偿，必须在当事人的事先有约的情况下；当合同双方没有约定，发生非责任竞合时——某一违约行为造成了精神损害但未构成侵权，应当将依照诚实信用原则，，把精神损害赔偿责任作为合同违约方的附随义务，通过目的性的扩张解释，将《合同法》中的相关条款的“损失”解释为包括精神损害在内，即通过违约之诉同样可以得到精神损害赔偿。本文亦对本案中精神损害赔偿金的确定依据进行分析。精神损害赔偿金的确定应当遵循抚慰为主，补偿为辅，及允许法官发挥自由裁量权的原则，确定精神损害赔偿金在不同案件中的具体数额。
[Abstract]:According to the general theory, "compensation for mental damage only exists in tort liability". In contract law, one of the differences between liability for tort and liability for breach of contract is the existence or absence of compensation for moral damage. The law of our country does not support the compensation for breach of contract. There are two different theories about whether moral damage compensation can be applied in breach of contract liability, that is, affirmation and negation. The author believes that our country should protect the right to compensation for mental damage of the parties to the contract so as to better safeguard the interests of the parties to the contract and perfect the protection of the spiritual interests of our country. Through the analysis of a case and court judgment in judicial practice, this paper concludes two controversial points of this case. Based on the comparative study of the compensation for breach of contract, this paper introduces the legal provisions of the common law system in the civil law system. In view of the analysis and comparison of our country's laws and regulations and the present situation of judicature, the author analyzes the first instance and the second instance of this article respectively. The judgment of first instance has avoided the right of choice of tort suit given to the parties under the present law of our country, and has not resolved the contradiction between the two. The judgment of the court of second instance supports the three claims at the same time, but this view actually violates the theory of concurrence of responsibilities, nor does it find any legal provisions or legal basis to support the right of claim. The author thinks that under the existing legal framework, if the parties agree on the compensation for moral damage in accordance with Article 113 of the contract Law, they must have a prior contract with the parties; when the parties do not agree, When a non-liability concurrence occurs-a breach of contract has caused mental damage but does not constitute an infringement, it should be interpreted as the collateral obligation of the party in breach of contract according to the principle of good faith and according to the principle of good faith. The "loss" of the relevant clause in contract Law is interpreted as including moral damage, that is, compensation for moral damage can also be obtained through the action of breach of contract. This article also analyzes the determination basis of mental damages in this case. The determination of mental damage compensation should follow the principle of comforting compensation and allowing judges to exercise their discretion to determine the specific amount of compensation in different cases.
【学位授予单位】：沈阳师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】