违约金的性质反思与类型重构——一种功能主义的视角

发布时间：2018-02-28 10:37

本文关键词： 违约金赔偿性惩罚性履约担保性功能主义　出处：《法商研究》2015年05期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：作为我国现行违约金司法调整制度的理论基础,"赔偿为主惩罚为辅"的违约金性质判断实际上存在"补偿与惩罚双重属性说"与"单一属性说"两种不同理解且均值得检讨。在功能上,赔偿性违约金主要用于解决某些纠纷中实际损失难以准确计算的问题;"惩罚性违约金"不在于惩罚违约的债务人,而在于履约担保。基于功能主义视角,违约金性质应在"单一属性说"的基础上坚持以赔偿性为原则、以担保性为例外做事前判断;赔偿性违约金是否过高应以债权人为观察对象判断,惩罚性违约金是否过高应以债务人为观察对象独立判断。能否并用继续履行或替代履行的损害赔偿取决于违约金所针对的违约事由,整体上与违约金的性质没有必然联系,但可以作为是否应调整违约金的考量因素。
[Abstract]:As the theoretical basis of the current judicial adjustment system of liquidated damages in our country, the nature judgment of "compensation is the main punishment" has two different understandings: "compensation and punishment dual attribute theory" and "single attribute theory". Is worth reviewing. In terms of function, The compensatory liquidated damages are mainly used to solve the problem that the actual loss is difficult to calculate accurately in some disputes. The punitive penalty is not to punish the debtor of breach of contract, but to guarantee the performance of performance. On the basis of "single attribute theory", the nature of liquidated damages should be judged according to the principle of compensability, with the exception of guaranty, and whether the compensatory damages are too high should be judged by the creditor. Whether the punitive penalty is too high should be judged independently by the debtor. Whether the damages can be performed or replaced by the continued performance depends on the cause of the breach of contract, which is not necessarily related to the nature of the liquidated damages as a whole. However, it can be taken as a consideration of whether the penalty for breach of contract should be adjusted.
【作者单位】：武汉大学法学院;
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】