合同法上可预见性规则研究

发布时间：2018-11-19 11:40

【摘要】：根据损害赔偿的目的，违约方应当对与其行为具有因果关系的全部损害负赔偿责任，但是，法院在长期审判过程中逐渐意识到，若不管违约造成的损害如何不同寻常或不可预见都给予完全彻底的赔偿，，对违约方来说显然是不公平的，而且也会影响商业贸易的发展。正如德国学者拉伦茨所说：“人无须为不相当之后果负责，其深层次的原因在于它们不能为人们所合理控制。”因此，十九世纪开始，两大法系诸多国家或从立法上或从判例中确立了限制损害赔偿范围的可预见性规则。1854年Hadley v. Baxendale案后，可预见性规则产生了广泛的影响，并在世界范围内得到了普遍适用。根据Hadley规则，原告可以获得赔偿的损失包括违约所引起的事物通常发展过程中的自然损失以及为被告所知晓之特殊情况下产生的非正常损失。我国《合同法》第113条也明确规定了可预见性规则，该规则的确立有利于实现契约正义、保障交易安全。但是此规则又极具弹性，为法官行使自由裁量权创造空间的同时，也使其在司法适用中遇到了一些障碍——由于对可预见性规则缺乏权威解释和系统研究，实践中很多法官会避开可预见性规则，转而适用违约金或采用调解的方式化解纠纷。再者，我国对于合同法上因果关系理论的研究未有实质进展，这使得实践中违约损害赔偿范围的确定十分困难，其中法官素质是一方面原因，而更重要的是因果关系本身所具有的抽象性、复杂性。此时，可预见性规则的作用显得更为突出。有鉴于此，本文以可预见性规则为论题，通过比较法国、英国、美国等国家立法和判例中的可预见性规则，剖析其理论构成及其与相关理论，尤其是因果关系理论之间的关系，进而结合具体案例对可预见性规则的判断标准、限制与排除适用等问题进行了深入研究，并分析了可预见性规则在我国司法实践中的障碍与出路。对可预见性规则的研究尤其是对其司法适用的研究，对于确定违约损害赔偿范围、平衡合同双方利益以及实现公平正义有着重要意义。
[Abstract]:For the purpose of compensation for damages, the defaulting party should be liable for all damage that is causally linked to its conduct, but the court has come to realize, over a long period of time, that It is obviously unfair to the breaching party to compensate completely and completely no matter how unusual or unpredictable the damage caused by the breach may be, and it will also affect the development of commercial trade. As the German scholar Lalenz said: "people do not have to be responsible for the consequences, the deep reason is that they can not be reasonably controlled by people." Therefore, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, many countries of the two legal systems established the rules of predictability which limited the scope of compensation for damages either in legislation or in jurisprudence. After the Hadley v. Baxendale case of 1854, the rule of predictability had a wide influence. And in the world has been universally applicable. According to the Hadley rules, the damages that the plaintiff may receive include natural losses in the ordinary course of development caused by breach of contract and abnormal losses arising out of exceptional circumstances known to the defendant. Article 113 of contract Law of our country also clearly stipulates the rule of predictability, and the establishment of this rule is conducive to the realization of contract justice and the guarantee of transaction security. However, this rule is very flexible, creating space for judges to exercise their discretion, and at the same time making them encounter some obstacles in judicial application due to the lack of authoritative interpretation and systematic study of the rules of predictability. In practice, many judges avoid the rule of predictability and apply liquidated damages or mediation to resolve disputes. Furthermore, there is no substantial progress in the study of causality in contract law in our country, which makes it very difficult to determine the scope of damages for breach of contract in practice, among which the quality of judges is one of the reasons. What is more important is the abstraction and complexity of causality itself. At this point, the role of the rule of predictability is more prominent. In view of this, this paper takes the rule of predictability as the topic, by comparing the rules of predictability in the legislations and precedents of France, the United Kingdom and the United States, analyzes its theoretical structure and its relationship with relevant theories, especially the theory of causality. Furthermore, combining with specific cases, this paper makes an in-depth study on the criteria of judging the rules of predictability, restrictions and exclusions, and analyzes the obstacles and ways out of the rules of predictability in the judicial practice of our country. The study on the rules of predictability, especially on its judicial application, is of great significance in determining the scope of damages for breach of contract, balancing the interests of both parties to the contract, and realizing fairness and justice.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】