【摘要】：大陸法系國(guó)家和英美法系國(guó)家在違約金問(wèn)題上都面臨著共同的困惑,即如何判斷違約金是否過(guò)高,如何確定其判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。英國(guó)最高法院在2015年通過(guò)兩個(gè)上訴案件,重構(gòu)了其歷史上存在一百余年的違約罰金判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并確立了以"次要義務(wù)--正當(dāng)利益--完全不成比例原則"為一體的新標(biāo)準(zhǔn),從程序和實(shí)體兩個(gè)方面對(duì)違約金是否過(guò)高進(jìn)行判斷。我國(guó)雖是大陸法系國(guó)家,但違約金調(diào)減權(quán)在司法實(shí)踐的行使已經(jīng)嚴(yán)重失范,英國(guó)法上新確立的罰金判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對(duì)于規(guī)范我國(guó)違約金調(diào)減權(quán)的行使具有重要的參考價(jià)值。
[Abstract]:Civil law countries and Anglo-American law countries are faced with common confusion on the question of liquidated damages, that is, how to judge whether the liquidated damages are too high and how to determine their judgment standards. Britain's Supreme Court, in two appeals cases in 2015, reconstructed its history of more than a hundred years of fine judgment for breach of contract, and established a new standard based on the principle of "secondary obligations-legitimate interests-total proportionality". Judging whether the penalty for breach of contract is too high from two aspects of procedure and entity. Although China is a civil law country, the exercise of the right to transfer and abatement of liquidated damages has been seriously lost in judicial practice. The newly established standard of fine judgment in English law has important reference value for standardizing the exercise of the right to transfer and abatement of liquidated damages in our country.
【作者單位】： 西南政法大學(xué);
【基金】：2016年重慶市研究生科研創(chuàng)新項(xiàng)目《公共地役權(quán)制度在城市街區(qū)制建設(shè)中的優(yōu)越地位及實(shí)現(xiàn)路徑探究》(CYB16076) 西南政法大學(xué)2016年度學(xué)生科研創(chuàng)新計(jì)劃項(xiàng)目《我國(guó)街區(qū)制改革中的法律路徑選擇——以公共地役權(quán)為視角》(2016XZXS-011)的研究成果
【分類號(hào)】：D956.1;DD913
，

本文編號(hào)：2160384