违约金的边缘问题

发布时间：2018-07-12 20:35

本文选题：违约金条款 + 违约损害赔偿　；参考：《江汉论坛》2015年11期

【摘要】：不宜称违约金条款排除了违约损害赔偿制度的适用。所谓若允许不运用违约金条款而适用违约损害赔偿制度,就意味着差人单方意思表示优越于双方合意,这是混淆了不同层次的问题。以约定优先于法定来主张必须运用违约金条款而不得援用违约损害赔偿制度,也难有说服力,因为不存在什么约定优先于法定的铁律,究竟约定抑或法定优先,必须具体情况具体对待,看法律的具体规定,看当事人的具体约定。除非当事人有特别约定或法律有特别规定,违约金条款不是限责条款。违约金条款不是结算条款和清理条款,因其不符合结算条款和清理条款的定义,不符合违约金责任的本质属性,在许多情况下也不符合当事人的本意。约定的违约金不同于损失赔偿额的计算方法,这从《中华人民共和国合同法》第114条第1款的文义,从立法者的智慧,及从二者的本质属性和判断标准,从历史解释的路径,都能得到证实。
[Abstract]:The clause of liquidated damages excludes the application of the system of damages for breach of contract. If it is allowed to apply the system of damages for breach of contract without applying the clause of liquidated damages, it means that the unilateral intention of the police is superior to the agreement of both parties, which confuses different levels of problems. It is also difficult to argue that it is necessary to apply the liquidated damages clause rather than to invoke the system of compensation for damages for breach of contract, because there is no agreement prior to the legal iron law, whether the agreement or the legal priority should be applied. Must be specific to the situation, see the specific provisions of the law, see the specific agreement of the parties. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or otherwise provided for by law, the liquidated damages clause is not a limitation clause. The liquidated damages clause is not settlement clause and liquidation clause, because it does not accord with the definition of settlement clause and liquidation clause, does not accord with the essential attribute of liquidated damages liability, and in many cases does not accord with the original intention of the parties. The agreed penalty for breach of contract is different from the method of calculating the amount of compensation for damages, from the meaning of Article 114, paragraph 1, of the contract Law of the people's Republic of China, from the wisdom of the legislator, from the essential attributes and judgment criteria of both, and from the path of historical interpretation. Can be proved.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【基金】：国家哲学社会科学基金重点项目“法学方法论与中国民商法研究”(13AZD065)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D923.6

【共引文献】