本文選題：懲罰性違約金 + 違約金調(diào)整�。� 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)不斷發(fā)展，合同內(nèi)容多樣化的要求，違約金的功能及作用日漸受到重視。我國目前的違約金制度中將違約金按照功能劃分為賠償性違約金和懲罰性違約金，我國現(xiàn)行法律賠償性違約金體系較為完善，并有普遍的適用，而懲罰性違約金體系依然處于半空白狀，法律上并未對懲罰性違約金和賠償性違約金進(jìn)行明確的區(qū)分定義和區(qū)分規(guī)制，這無疑是對違約金一項重要功能的桎梏與浪費(fèi)。 違約金作為違約行為發(fā)生后幾大重要的救濟(jì)方式之一，只有充分肯定違約金原有的懲罰性屬性，懲罰性違約金以“固有意義上的違約金”的身份在合同法的軌道上運(yùn)行，才能使其更好的發(fā)揮督促和擔(dān)保合同履行的意義。而這樣的“身份”在理論上滿足誠實(shí)信用這一帝王條款的要求，也是合同嚴(yán)守規(guī)則的應(yīng)有之意，無論是合同中的任意一方，在訂約時都必須秉承契約精神，善良地謹(jǐn)慎地嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)赜喠⑵跫s中的每一個條款，并在合同履行的過程中嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行，具有懲罰性質(zhì)的違約金對于威懾當(dāng)事人雙方嚴(yán)格按照合同條款履行義務(wù)，對肆意撕毀契約的行為加以嚴(yán)厲的懲罰，以起到維護(hù)契約精神的重要作用。 為了維護(hù)守約方也就是債權(quán)人的合理利益，不僅要確立以懲罰性為功能的違約金的重要地位，也要將懲罰性違約金從損害賠償違約金的體系當(dāng)中脫身出來，尤其是脫身于用以規(guī)制賠償性違約金的《合同法》第114條第二款關(guān)于根據(jù)損害進(jìn)行酌減的規(guī)則當(dāng)中，尊重合同當(dāng)事人雙方在締約時所表達(dá)的自由意志，尊重基于真實(shí)意思表示下的契約精神。 對于合同雙方當(dāng)事人對于懲罰性違約金數(shù)額的約定，，原則上尊重合同當(dāng)事人，對于違約金數(shù)額是否過高，是否需要酌減，法官基于的不能是賠償性違約金所依據(jù)的實(shí)際損害額，而更多的是違約方也就是債務(wù)人在違約行為中的過錯程度，懲罰性違約金所懲罰的是不遵守契約精神，肆意違反契約的不當(dāng)行為，是一種私的制裁，那么對于沒有過錯的違約行為，或過錯程度較低的違約行為，若再過多的懲罰，就違背了違約金維護(hù)契約精神的本意，故違約金的數(shù)額酌減規(guī)則，應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)違約方的過錯程度，并參考實(shí)際情況加以綜合，適當(dāng)減少，學(xué)界提出的標(biāo)的總額的百分之二十規(guī)則可以作為制定規(guī)則的一種幅度參考，在確保獨(dú)立的懲罰性違約金請求權(quán)不受損害賠償請求權(quán)的干擾的前提下，以標(biāo)的總額百分之二十的數(shù)額對違約行為進(jìn)行懲罰，加重違約成本，督促當(dāng)事人積極履約。 懲罰性違約金以懲罰性為主要功能，即無免除的損害賠償?shù)念A(yù)定功能，通過這樣的設(shè)計，使懲罰性違約金建立出獨(dú)立的架構(gòu)體系，又可與賠償性違約金相輔相成，為違約金制度的發(fā)生提供完善的框架體系，在民法以補(bǔ)償為原則的大前提下，以私的方式，有限度的規(guī)制和懲罰了違約行為，以實(shí)現(xiàn)合同自由的同時，維護(hù)了公平與平等。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy and the diversification of contract contents, the function and function of liquidated damages are paid more and more attention. In the present system of penalty for breach of contract in our country, the penalty for breach of contract is divided into compensatory damages and punitive damages according to their functions. However, the punitive penalty system is still in a semi-blank state, and the law does not clearly define and regulate the punitive liquidated damages and the compensatory liquidated damages, which is undoubtedly the shackle and waste of an important function of the liquidated damages. As one of the most important relief methods after the breach of contract, only the punitive property of the liquidated damages is fully affirmed, and the punitive damages run on the track of the contract law as "penalty in the inherent sense". In order to make it better play supervision and guarantee the significance of contract performance. Such "identity" theoretically meets the requirements of the monarch clause of good faith and credit, and it is also the proper meaning of the contract to strictly abide by the rules. Whether it is any party to the contract, it must uphold the spirit of the contract when it is contracted. Kindly, carefully and rigorously enter into every clause of the contract and strictly enforce it in the course of the performance of the contract. The penalty penalty will deter the parties from performing their obligations strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract, In order to maintain the spirit of the contract, severe punishment should be imposed on the wanton tearing of the contract. In order to safeguard the legitimate interests of compliance parties, that is, creditors, we should not only establish the important status of liquidated damages with punitive functions, but also extricate punitive liquidated damages from the system of damages for breach of contract. In particular, getting out of the rules of Article 114, paragraph 2, of the contract Law, which regulates compensatory damages, respects the free will expressed by the parties to the contract at the time of the conclusion of the contract. Respect the spirit of contract based on the expression of true meaning. With regard to the agreement made by the parties to the contract on the amount of punitive liquidated damages, the parties to the contract are respected in principle, and whether the amount of the liquidated damages is excessive or not is subject to reduction, and the judge cannot base on the actual amount of damage on the basis of the compensatory liquidated damages, What is more is the degree of fault of the defaulting party, that is, the debtor in the breach of contract. The punitive penalty for breach of contract is to punish the improper act of disobeying the spirit of the contract and wantonly violating the contract, which is a kind of personal sanction. Then, for a breach of contract without fault or a breach of contract with a lower degree of fault, if the penalty is excessive, it will violate the original intention of maintaining the spirit of the contract by the liquidated damages. Therefore, the amount of liquidated damages shall be reduced according to the degree of fault of the breaching party. And with reference to the actual situation to be synthesized and appropriately reduced, the 20% rule on the total amount of the subject matter put forward by the academic community can be used as a range reference for the formulation of the rules. On the premise of ensuring that the independent punitive damages claim right is not interfered with by the right of claim for damages, the amount of the total amount of the target is 20% to punish the breach of contract, increase the cost of breach of contract, and urge the parties to perform actively. Punitive penalty is the main function of punitive damages, that is, the predefined function of non-exempted damages. Through such design, punitive liquidated damages can establish an independent framework system, and can complement the compensatory liquidated damages. In order to provide a perfect framework system for the occurrence of liquidated damages system, under the premise of the principle of compensation in civil law, the breach of contract is regulated and punished in a private way, so as to realize the freedom of contract and maintain fairness and equality.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.6

【共引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)會議論文 前6條

1 楊立新;王軼;王竹;王天凡;趙可;;中國民法學(xué)三十年(1978—2008)[A];中國法學(xué)三十年（1978-2008）[C];2008年

2 鄧海峰;;排污權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓法律問題研究[A];生態(tài)安全與環(huán)境風(fēng)險防范法治建設(shè)——2011年全國環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會（年會）論文集（第三冊）[C];2011年

3 王有志;石少俠;;民商法關(guān)系論[A];中國商法年刊創(chuàng)刊號（2001）[C];2001年

4 王芳;;淺析買賣合同中物的瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2008年第4輯）[C];2008年

5 潘幼亭;;沖突與矯治:論合同司法解除的路徑選擇——以彌合我國現(xiàn)行合同解除裁判的價值缺失為視角[A];全國法院第二十六屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會論文集：司法體制改革與民商事法律適用問題研究[C];2015年

6 謝雄雅;胡偉華;;標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利訴訟中FRAND原則的適用——以華為訴IDC案為視角[A];全國法院第二十六屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會論文集：司法體制改革與民商事法律適用問題研究[C];2015年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 陳琦;海上人身損害賠償制度論[D];大連海事大學(xué);2010年

2 田園;侵權(quán)行為客觀歸責(zé)理論研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

3 周瓊;論中國精神損害賠償?shù)氖聦?shí)及相關(guān)基礎(chǔ)[D];華中科技大學(xué);2011年

4 許俊強(qiáng);目的港受領(lǐng)遲延法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2011年

5 宋云博;國際貨物銷售合同違約責(zé)任研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2011年

6 李偉;我國光船租賃法律制度研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2012年

7 王莉莉;國際商事合同之實(shí)際履行問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2012年

8 王琳琳;論私權(quán)及其體系化[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

9 王洪亮;締約上過失制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2001年

10 龔賽紅;醫(yī)療損害賠償研究[D];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院;2000年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 婁永;論違約金的調(diào)整[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

2 鄒其燕;論債務(wù)不履行的損害賠償[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

3 孟志立;論過錯責(zé)任在合同法中地位與適用[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

4 朱素琴;經(jīng)營者信息披露義務(wù)制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

5 金鑫;船舶企業(yè)造船合同風(fēng)險防范法律問題研究[D];哈爾濱工程大學(xué);2010年

6 黃娟;論違反合同附隨義務(wù)的法律責(zé)任[D];湘潭大學(xué);2010年

7 符東杰;損害賠償中的損益相抵規(guī)則及其適用[D];蘇州大學(xué);2010年

8 謝用豪;公司清算義務(wù)人的范圍界定及其民事責(zé)任[D];江西財經(jīng)大學(xué);2010年

9 王傳巍;論安全保障義務(wù)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

10 賈慶偉;勞動者辭職權(quán)探析[D];長春工業(yè)大學(xué);2010年

本文編號：1800463