我国违约金司法酌减限制论

发布时间：2018-02-21 17:10

本文关键词： 违约金司法酌减释明权　出处：《烟台大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：违约金因其固有的损害赔偿及担保合同履行方面的优势,被广泛应用于合同中。然而,由于违约金司法酌减规则的混乱、违约金司法酌减指导思想错误,再加上法官释明权的过度适用,导致了违约金在司法实务中被过度地酌减,使得其应有功能属性难以得到发挥,且与合同自由、合同正义相悖。另外司法酌减中对具体的违约金种类之判断,实则是合同解释问题,应遵从当事人意思自治。违约金酌减应区分惩罚性违约金与赔偿性违约金,其中,赔偿性违约金应从损害赔偿预设的角度出发,酌情减少;而惩罚性违约金应从督促债务人履约的角度出发,以显示公平者为限。再者,明确违约金司法酌减的指导思想:应以不酌减为原则,以酌减为例外,并且法官在酌减中应审慎行使释明权。
[Abstract]:The liquidated damages are widely used in the contract because of their inherent damages and advantages in the performance of the guarantee contract. However, due to the confusion of the judicial deduction rules of the liquidated damages, the guiding ideology of the judicial action reduction of the liquidated damages is wrong. In addition, the excessive application of the judge's right of interpretation leads to the excessive reduction of the penalty for breach of contract in judicial practice, which makes it difficult to give play to its proper functional attributes and is free from contract. In addition, the judgment of the specific types of liquidated damages in judicial action reduction is actually a matter of contract interpretation and should be subject to the autonomy of the parties. The penalty should be reduced by distinguishing the punitive liquidated damages from the compensatory damages, among which, The compensatory liquidated damages should be reduced as appropriate from the perspective of presupposition of damages, while punitive damages should be limited to those who show fairness from the point of view of urging the debtor to perform. The guiding ideology of judicial action reduction of penalty for breach of contract should be the principle of no action reduction and the exception of action reduction and the judge should exercise the right of interpretation prudently.
【学位授予单位】：烟台大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】