本文選題：違約責(zé)任 + 侵權(quán)責(zé)任　； 參考：《沈陽師范大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：通說認(rèn)為：“精神損害賠償只存在于侵權(quán)責(zé)任中”。在合同法中，侵權(quán)責(zé)任和違約責(zé)任差異之一則是精神損害賠償?shù)挠袩o。我國法律并不支持違約精神損害賠償，在合同中出現(xiàn)精神損害，只能依據(jù)侵權(quán)獲得賠償。對于違約責(zé)任中能否適用精神損害賠償，學(xué)術(shù)界也形成了兩種不同的學(xué)說，即肯定說與否定說。筆者認(rèn)為，我國應(yīng)當(dāng)對在合同中守約方的精神損害賠償權(quán)予以保護(hù)，從而更好的維護(hù)合同當(dāng)事人的利益，也完善我國精神利益的保護(hù)。 本文通過司法實踐中的一則案例及法院判決進(jìn)行分析，歸納出該案例的兩個爭議焦點。通過對違約精神損害賠償進(jìn)行比較法上的考察，并分別介紹了英美法系大陸法系的法律規(guī)定。筆者鑒于對于我國法律規(guī)定和司法現(xiàn)狀的分析與比較法上的借鑒，對本文的一審、二審裁判分別進(jìn)行分析。一審判決回避了我國現(xiàn)在法律規(guī)定下賦予當(dāng)事人的違約侵權(quán)之訴的選擇權(quán)，沒有解決二者之間的矛盾。二審法院的判決同時支持了三項請求權(quán)，但是該觀點實際上還是違反責(zé)任競合的理論，也沒有找到支持請求權(quán)的法條或法理依據(jù)。 筆者認(rèn)為在現(xiàn)有的法律框架下，雙方當(dāng)事人若按照《合同法》第113條約定了精神損害賠償，必須在當(dāng)事人的事先有約的情況下；當(dāng)合同雙方?jīng)]有約定，發(fā)生非責(zé)任競合時——某一違約行為造成了精神損害但未構(gòu)成侵權(quán)，應(yīng)當(dāng)將依照誠實信用原則，，把精神損害賠償責(zé)任作為合同違約方的附隨義務(wù)，通過目的性的擴(kuò)張解釋，將《合同法》中的相關(guān)條款的“損失”解釋為包括精神損害在內(nèi)，即通過違約之訴同樣可以得到精神損害賠償。 本文亦對本案中精神損害賠償金的確定依據(jù)進(jìn)行分析。精神損害賠償金的確定應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循撫慰為主，補(bǔ)償為輔，及允許法官發(fā)揮自由裁量權(quán)的原則，確定精神損害賠償金在不同案件中的具體數(shù)額。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：沈陽師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 李永軍;非財產(chǎn)性損害的契約性救濟(jì)及其正當(dāng)性——違約責(zé)任與侵權(quán)責(zé)任的二元制體系下的邊際案例救濟(jì)[J];比較法研究;2003年06期

本文編號：1793845