【摘要】：根據(jù)損害賠償?shù)哪康�，違約方應(yīng)當對與其行為具有因果關(guān)系的全部損害負賠償責任，但是，法院在長期審判過程中逐漸意識到，若不管違約造成的損害如何不同尋�；虿豢深A(yù)見都給予完全徹底的賠償，，對違約方來說顯然是不公平的，而且也會影響商業(yè)貿(mào)易的發(fā)展。正如德國學者拉倫茨所說：“人無須為不相當之后果負責，其深層次的原因在于它們不能為人們所合理控制。”因此，十九世紀開始，兩大法系諸多國家或從立法上或從判例中確立了限制損害賠償范圍的可預(yù)見性規(guī)則。1854年Hadley v. Baxendale案后，可預(yù)見性規(guī)則產(chǎn)生了廣泛的影響，并在世界范圍內(nèi)得到了普遍適用。根據(jù)Hadley規(guī)則，原告可以獲得賠償?shù)膿p失包括違約所引起的事物通常發(fā)展過程中的自然損失以及為被告所知曉之特殊情況下產(chǎn)生的非正常損失。 我國《合同法》第113條也明確規(guī)定了可預(yù)見性規(guī)則，該規(guī)則的確立有利于實現(xiàn)契約正義、保障交易安全。但是此規(guī)則又極具彈性，為法官行使自由裁量權(quán)創(chuàng)造空間的同時，也使其在司法適用中遇到了一些障礙——由于對可預(yù)見性規(guī)則缺乏權(quán)威解釋和系統(tǒng)研究，實踐中很多法官會避開可預(yù)見性規(guī)則，轉(zhuǎn)而適用違約金或采用調(diào)解的方式化解糾紛。再者，我國對于合同法上因果關(guān)系理論的研究未有實質(zhì)進展，這使得實踐中違約損害賠償范圍的確定十分困難，其中法官素質(zhì)是一方面原因，而更重要的是因果關(guān)系本身所具有的抽象性、復(fù)雜性。此時，可預(yù)見性規(guī)則的作用顯得更為突出。 有鑒于此，本文以可預(yù)見性規(guī)則為論題，通過比較法國、英國、美國等國家立法和判例中的可預(yù)見性規(guī)則，剖析其理論構(gòu)成及其與相關(guān)理論，尤其是因果關(guān)系理論之間的關(guān)系，進而結(jié)合具體案例對可預(yù)見性規(guī)則的判斷標準、限制與排除適用等問題進行了深入研究，并分析了可預(yù)見性規(guī)則在我國司法實踐中的障礙與出路。對可預(yù)見性規(guī)則的研究尤其是對其司法適用的研究，對于確定違約損害賠償范圍、平衡合同雙方利益以及實現(xiàn)公平正義有著重要意義。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：中國社會科學院研究生院
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 范在峰,張斌;兩大法系違約損害賠償可預(yù)見性規(guī)則比較研究[J];比較法研究;2003年03期

2 趙金龍;損害賠償?shù)南拗埔?guī)則淺探[J];法商研究(中南政法學院學報);1997年02期

3 李育元;;論合同法上的可預(yù)見規(guī)則[J];法制與社會;2007年11期

4 汪芬;;可預(yù)見性規(guī)則在合同法上的適用范圍[J];法制與社會;2009年26期

5 羅慧敏;;合同法中的可預(yù)見性規(guī)則及在我國的具體應(yīng)用[J];法制與社會;2012年03期

6 劉云升,陳曦;我國法上的合理預(yù)見規(guī)則及其完善[J];河北師范大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2003年03期

7 孫麗娜;違約損害賠償中可預(yù)見性規(guī)則與因果關(guān)系的比較[J];經(jīng)濟論壇;2002年09期

8 葉金強;;違約損害賠償中的可預(yù)見性規(guī)則——英美法的理論與實踐[J];南京大學法律評論;2001年01期

9 譚安華;;論合理預(yù)見的規(guī)則[J];求實;2005年12期

10 藍承烈,閆仁河;合理預(yù)見規(guī)則比較研究[J];學習與探索;2000年04期

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前5條

1 魏亞瓊;違約損害賠償中的可預(yù)見性規(guī)則[D];吉林大學;2005年

2 劉文萍;違約損害賠償之可預(yù)見性規(guī)則[D];中國政法大學;2006年

3 左建華;合同法上可預(yù)見性規(guī)則研究[D];復(fù)旦大學;2008年

4 孔繁波;論違約損害賠償范圍[D];中國政法大學;2008年

5 宋慧林;違約責任中的可預(yù)見規(guī)則研究[D];暨南大學;2009年

本文編號：2342209