旅游法上惩罚性赔偿的正当性分析--兼论旅游精神损害赔偿的可替代性

惩罚性赔偿是旅游合同违约损害赔偿的一个重大突破。鉴于精神损害在旅游合同中具有特殊地位,旅游惩罚性赔偿弥补了以往精神损害赔偿在违约责任中得不到支持的遗憾。结合旅游活动的自身特点,进一步探讨惩罚性赔偿与精神损害赔偿在旅游违约中的正当性、可替代性具有十分重要的理论和现实意义。     

Damages for Breach of Contract: Compensation, Restitution and Vindication

In this article we examine the role which vindication playsin contract damages. Vindication describes the making good ofa right by the award of an adequate remedy. We argue that, whilethe primary purpose of compensation is to provide an indemnityfor loss, an award of compensatory damages will neverthelessgenerally vindicate the right to performance of the contract.We go on to consider a distinct measure of damages, vindicatorydamages. These, we argue, are neither compensatory nor restitutionary,neither loss-based nor gain-based: they are a rights-based remedy.We then identify various situations in which the courts maybe seen to have awarded what are, in substance, vindicatorydamages. We conclude by considering the benefits which may followfrom recognition of the availability of vindicatory damagesas a contract remedy.     

合同解除效果与违约责任——以请求权基础为视角之检讨

《合同法》第97条的"恢复原状"属于返还上独立的请求权基础,具有债权效力。依据该条的"恢复原状"主张不当得利返还或所有权返还并无法律依据。解除后实物返还不能时的折价补偿,以及因返还产生的费用均属返还义务而非损害赔偿义务的内容。《合同法》第97条的"赔偿损失"并非因解除而生独立的损害赔偿请求权。在违约导致合同解除的场合,当事人可依据《合同法》第107条主张履行利益的损害赔偿。除行使任意解除权外,当事人原则上只能依据《合同法》第42条的缔约过失责任规范来主张信赖利益损害赔偿。另外,合同解除与违约责任可以并存。违约金请求权原则上不受合同解除的影响。     

Goal Conflict in Juror Assessments of Compensatory and Punitive Damages

Recent tort reform debates have been hindered by a lack of knowledge of how jurors assess damages. Two studies investigated whether jurors are able to appropriately compartmentalize compensatory and punitive damages. In Study 1, mock jurors read a trial summary and were asked to assess compensatory and punitive damages in one of three conditions: (a) compensatory damages only, (b) punitive damages for the plaintiff, or (c) punitive damages for the state treasury. Results suggest that jurors who did not have the option to award punitive damages inflated compensatory damages via pain and suffering awards. Jurors were marginally more likely to award punitive damages when the plaintiff was the recipient. Mock jurors in Study 2 read a similar case summary and were asked to assess compensatory and punitive damages. Two factors were varied in Study 2: (a) egregiousness of the defendant's conduct, and (b) the recipient of any punitive damages (the plaintiff vs. a consortium of state funds). Jurors were more likely to award punitive damages when the defendant's conduct was more egregious and when the plaintiff was the recipient. The results suggest leakage between compensatory and punitive damage judgments, contrary to the law's mandate.     

PUNITIVE DAMAGES,CHINESE TORT LAW,AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE

In a country such as China, with abundant consumer products and the inevitability of product defects, claims for punitive damages are sure to arise under Article 47 of the new Chinese Tort Law. Article 47 provides that “(w)hereany producer or seller knowingly produces or sells defective products, causing death or serious damage to the health of others, the injured party may request appropriate punitive damages.” As Chinese jurists and scholars interpret Article 47, they may wish to consider whether lessons can be drawn from the American experience. During the past two decades, few areas of American law have changed more radically than the law on punitive damages. While there were once few restraints on the ability of a judge or jury to impose punitive damages in a case involving egregious conduct, today there are a host of limitations embodied in American state and federal law. In many American states, statutes or judicial decisions restrict the ability of a court to award punitive damages by narrowly defining the types of conduct that will justify a punitive award, raising the standard of proof, capping the amount of punitive damages, requiring a portion of a punitive award to be forfeited to the state, or limiting vicarious liability for punitive damages. In addition, under federal constitutional law, the principle of due process limits the imposition of punitive damages by scrutinizing the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages and prohibiting an award to be based on harm to persons other than the plaintiff. An examination of these developments from a comparative law perspective may prove useful to the implementation of Article 47.     

惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼研究

通过个别诉讼行使惩罚性赔偿请求权,难以对经营者形成足够的威慑力,消费者协会、检察机关提起惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼的必要性客观存在。即使将消费者协会提起公益诉讼的"公益性职责"与检察机关提起公益诉讼的"职权"勉强解释为立法者赋予消费者协会、检察机关以形式性惩罚性赔偿请求权,以该请求权为基础的惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼也只是受害消费者享有的惩罚性赔偿请求权的集中行使方式。除非立法机关为消费者协会、检察机关另行创设实质性惩罚性赔偿请求权,惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼注定与特定受害消费者存在密切联系,无法从根本上破解惩罚性赔偿金的计算及其发放难题。因而,惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼对行政处罚与刑事罚金仅构成补充,在完善惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼制度的同时,应当强化惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼与其他消费者权益保护手段之间的协作机制。     

A General Clause of Punitive Damages Should Be Established in China's Future Civil Code

Punitive damages have several functions that are worthy of serious research. For instance, punitive damages could help to compensate victims for moral damages suffered and offer more sufficient ex-ante compensation in cases of wrongful death or bodily injury, thus compensating for the losses suffered by victims more completely; they could punish private wrongs more effectively and provide a means of personal revenge within the law, incidentally deterring and preventing future wrongs; they could be used to correct abuses of power or status by the rich, large corporations, or the government; and they could be used to complement criminal law, etc. In order to fully realize the advantages of this institution in the Chinese society, we should expand its application in China’s tort law and carefully design the scope of its application, including the subjects to which it would be applicable and the amounts that would be allowable. In the short term, the application of punitive damages could be expanded through specific individual legislation, increase of the amounts of compensation for mental damages in individual cases or local legislation. In the long term, a general clause on punitive damages should be established in tort law in China’s future Civil Code, stipulating that “punitive damages can be applied to those who have performed tortious acts that deserve severe moral condemnation, due to the actor’s malicious intent or indifference or disregard for others’ rights.”     

The Effects of Limiting Punitive Damage Awards

In response to concerns that jury awards in tort cases are excessive and unpredictable, nearly every state legislature has enacted some version of tort reform that is intended to curb extravagant damage awards. One of the most important and controversial reforms involves capping (or limiting) the maximum punitive damage award. We conducted a jury analogue study to assess the impact of this reform. In particular, we examined the possibility that capping punitive awards would cause jurors to inflate their compensatory awards to satisfy their desires to punish the defendant, particularly in situations where the defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible. Relative to a condition in which punitive damages were unlimited, caps on punitive damages did not result in inflation of compensatory awards. However, jurors who had no option to award punitive damages assessed compensatory damages at a significantly higher level than did jurors who had the opportunity to do so. We discuss the policy implications of these findings.     

从比较法的角度看我国惩罚性赔偿制度的必要性

惩罚性赔偿金是英美法上的一项重要制度,具有损害填补、惩罚被告的作用,而德、法等大陆法系国家奉行单纯的补偿性民事责任制度,排斥对于惩罚性赔偿金合法性的认同。我国最早在《消费者权益保护》第49条对其加以规定,取得较好的社会效果,然而2009年颁布的《侵权责任法》并未将惩罚性赔偿原则写入总则,而是局限于产品责任之中。因此,完善惩罚性赔偿金制度有其必要性,通过对惩罚性赔偿制度的介绍以及英美法规定的研习,对我国惩罚性赔偿制度提出建议。     

惩罚性赔偿制度在我国产品责任中规定的不足与完善思考——以侵权责任法第47条之规定为考察对象

惩罚性赔偿是指赔偿数额超过实际损害数额的赔偿,其制度功能主要在于惩罚不法行为人,遏制类似行为再行发生,并就受害人之损失充分予以补偿。我国《侵权责任法》第47条关于惩罚性赔偿金的规定既有进步意义,也存在一定问题。合理适用惩罚性赔偿金,明确其适用条件,特别是对赔偿金数额标准的合理确定关系着惩罚性赔偿制度的功能与价值的充分实现。     

《民法典》第157条(法律行为无效之法律后果)评注

本条中“民事法律行为”既包括财产行为也包括身份行为,既包括负担行为也包括处分行为;“确定不发生效力”既包括效力待定法律行为终未获追认、已成立终未获审批的情形,也包括法律行为未成立的情形。本条中“财产”包括一切可转让的利益,就权利移转型合同而言,财产返还请求权系物权性的回复原状请求权,它主要指有形财产的占有回复和权利簿册记载的回复。折价补偿请求权为特殊的不当得利请求权,在合同无效清算场合,应一般性禁用《民法典》第986条得利丧失抗辩规则。损害赔偿请求权是一种特殊的缔约过失赔偿请求权,可适用于双方明知或应知合同违法、背俗而无效的场合。本条并非宣示性条款,它规定了三项独立的请求权基础。在法律对建设工程合同等特殊合同以及其他法律行为无效另有特别规定时,应各依该特别规定处理。     

《侵权责任法》第47条合理性之法理基础分析

《侵权责任法》第47条是我国首次以基本法的形式对惩罚性赔偿制度进行的相关规定。本文从惩罚性赔偿的法理基础角度分析了该项制度确立的合理性,并试图通过严密的制度设计使其内容更具合理性,以确立惩罚性赔偿制度在促进社会安全和私权保障这一人类主题中的重要地位。     

违约金担保功能的异化与回归——以对违约金类型的考察为中心

违约金在历史上仅作为债务履行的担保工具而存在。为促使债务人履行债务,当事人往往约定较高数额的违约金,以形成一种履行上的压力。此类违约金的目的在于担保履行,而非解决损害赔偿,是固有意义的违约金。同时,此类违约金也并非当然具有惩罚违约行为之目的。而惩罚性违约金的效力在于,违约方除须支付违约金外,尚须继续履行债务或者负担损害赔偿债务。赔偿性违约金本不属于违约金之范畴,原系当事人在订立合同时对损害赔偿总额之预定。后世法律为简化损害赔偿程序、平衡当事人利益,将违约金推定为损害赔偿总额预定,遂产生赔偿性违约金。我国合同法第114条以规范赔偿性违约金为主,但亦不完全否定惩罚性违约金,其主要问题在于,违约金固有的担保功能丧失殆尽,而赔偿性违约金之简化损害赔偿的功能也没能充分发挥。应对合同法第114条在重新解释的基础上进行必要的改造,以明确违约金的功能定位,并改进其法律效力。     

Contract Damages, Corrective Justice and Punishment

This article re-examines the established principle that contract damages compensate but do not punish from the theoretical perspective of corrective justice and, in particular, the version advocated by Professor Ernest Weinrib. Weinrib argues that corrective justice affirms the traditional view that contract damages should be circumscribed by compensatory functions, and the notion of punitive damages is inconsistent with the structure of corrective justice and hence contractual rights. The correctness of this conclusion depends, however, on what is understood by punishment. This article argues that punishment is not necessarily explicable only as a form of state punishment, but may (adopting the retributive idea of punishment expounded by Jane Hampton) also be understood as a form of correlatively-structured response that redresses the moral injury inflicted by one's conduct on another. If that is the case, punitive damages for breach of contract may be justified even within the framework of corrective justice.     

美国合同法中的精神损害赔偿探析

传统的英美合同法理论认为,侵权责任中的精神损害赔偿不能扩展到违约责任中。然而,随着经济的发展,为了更好地保护受害方的利益,美国法学界和法院在一定程度上打破了这一传统原则,允许受害方在某些情况下可以要求违约中的精神损害赔偿,如：合同具有个人因素,合同条款无法为受害方提供适当金钱赔偿,违约方在订约时已经或应该预见到其违约行为将导致的精神损害等。笔者在对此进行仔细研究的基础上,对我国在这方面的立法提出了建议。     

论违约解除后的责任承担

违约解除后的“恢复原状”意指受领方对原物的返还,属于物权请求权的内容;“采取补救措施”是指在给付物已毁损、灭失或者给付的金钱的情况下受领方对给付物价额的返还,属于不当得利;违约解除后“赔偿损失”的目的并非使合同恢复至合同订立前的状态,而在于填补守约方因相对方的违约行为而受到的损失,因而合同解除与违约责任理应并存。违约解除之后,担保人应该继续就债务人的价额返还义务与赔偿损失义务承担担保责任,价额返还与赔偿损失请求权的诉讼时效应自合同被解除时开始起算。《最高人民法院公报》裁判摘要虽有事实上的拘束力,但其受制于学说的评析与检验。     

论违约金的性质——以《合同法》第114条为视角

我国《合同法》第114条约定违约金的性质得由当事人自由约定。对违约金的性质没有约定或者约定不明确的,当事人可以通过补充协议的方式来约定或者明确违约金的性质。不能达成补充协议,应当通过补充性解释来确定违约金的性质。以上方法依次用尽,仍不能确定约定违约金的性质的,应当认定约定违约金的性质是赔偿性为主、惩罚性为辅。《合同法》第114条第3款是赔偿性违约金,不是惩罚性违约金。《合同法》第114条第1款“约定因违约产生的损失赔偿额的计算方法”得出的损害赔偿额是赔偿性违约金。     

我国产品责任制度:守成与创新

相对于《产品质量法》有关产品责任的规定,《侵权责任法》第五章既有守成的一面也有诸多创新规定,在解释上不可完全适用特别法优先的原则或新法优先的原则,而是要将两个法律的相关规定有机结合起来进行系统的解释,方能正确适用。《侵权责任法》没有对产品责任中的"损害"进行重新界定,产品自身的财产损失不属于产品责任的"损害";精神损害赔偿适用于产品责任案件,惩罚性赔偿规定的适用有待最高人民法院作出更具有可操作性的司法解释。     

Insurers, Claims and the Boundaries of Good Faith

This article examines the refusal of the English courts to award damages for consequential losses following unreasonable delay on the part of insurers in settling a claim. This has the potential to give rise to dire consequences for insureds. These difficulties have been addressed in North American jurisdictions where the concept of good faith has been developed and applied as a means of both compensating insureds and regulating the conduct of insurers. However, a hallmark of English law is that it fails to draw a bright line between the law of contract and the law of contracts. As a result, the policy issues that should inform insurance contracts are excluded by virtue of the notion, imported from the law of contract, that the contractual relationship is a matter of private law and is not, therefore, a means for public regulation of insurers.     

Compensating Plaintiffs and Punishing Defendants: Is Bifurcation Necessary?

Critics of the civil jury have proposed several procedural reforms to address the concern that damage awards are capricious and unpredictable. One such reform is the bifurcation or separation of various phases of a trial that involves multiple claims for damages. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damages phases of a civil tort trial. We manipulated the wealth of the defendant and the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct (both sets of evidence theoretically related to punitive but not to compensatory damages) across three cases in a jury analog study. We wondered whether jurors would misuse the punitive damages evidence in fixing compensatory damages and whether bifurcation would effectively undo this practice. Our findings indicated that mock jurors did not improperly consider punitive damages evidence in their decisions about compensation. Moreover, bifurcation had the unexpected effect of augmenting punitive damage awards. These findings raise questions about the merits of bifurcation in cases that involve multiple claims for damages.