可预见性规则的司法适用

可预见性规则是指损害赔偿的范围以违约方订立合同时预见到或应当预见到的因违反合同可能造成的损失为限,是合同法领域的一个重要规则。它将违约方的违约责任限制在缔约时已经预见或应当预见到的损失范围内。我国合同法中规定了可预见性规则,作为违约损害赔偿中对可得利益的限制。但是可得利益损失不像现实的损失那样容易计算,把握不好就会有失公平,直接影响到当事人的利益。因此在实务中,对可预见性规则的把握显得越发重要。     

可得利益的法律保护

合同法第一百一十三条规定：“当事人一方不履行合同义务或者履行合同义务不符合约定,给对方造成损失的,损失赔偿额应当相当于因违约所造成的损失,包括合同履行后可以获得的利益”,这是我国合同法首次明确规定赔偿应包括可期待利益即可得利益的损失,与国际通行做法相一致。随着合同法的施行,诉请法院判令违约方或加害人赔偿可得利益损失的纠纷案件有所增加。在审理这类民事损害赔偿纠纷案件中,依法保护可得利益以及客观公正地计算可得利益损失的赔偿数额,对于切实保护守约人或受害人的合法权益,使其损失能够得到应有的、合理的补偿…     

合同法上可得利益赔偿规则的反思与重构——从《中华人民共和国合同法》第113条适用的实证考察出发

就可得利益赔偿而言,《中华人民共和国合同法》第113条明确了对当事人可得利益的保护,同时也确立了可预见性规则对其加以限制。在我国的司法实践中,作为可得利益赔偿规则的可预见性规则的适用率极低,而立法没有规定的确定性规则在司法实践中却得以大量适用。这显然不利于当事人可得利益的保护,进而影响合同预期目的实现,阻碍市场交易。为此,应针对可预见性规则在司法实践中暴露出来的不足,完善可预见性规则;针对司法实践对确定性规则的需求,确立确定性规则。     

违约损害赔偿研究

根据合同法原则,当一方当事人没有合法理由而未能全面、适当地履行其合同义务,他应当赔偿对方因此遭受的损失。然而,在任何国家,违约方的赔偿责任都不是无限的。特别是我国统一合同法明确规定了可得利益及合理预见规则,怎样界定合同中的利益与损害,如何运用具体标准与规则合理确定违约损害赔偿的范围,这是一个值得深入、系统研究的问题。本文正是对这一问题进行了简要的探讨。     

论合同法中的可预见规则

可预见规则作为限制违约损害赔偿范围的最重要的标准之一 ,在世界各国民法或合同法中得到了普遍的承认。本文分析了可预见规则的法理基础 ,认为可预见规则的理论依据在于诚实信用原则。可预见规则与因果关系在功能、判断标准、所确定的赔偿范围、保护的重点等方面存在不同。判断是否可预见的因素主要是合同当事人的身份和合同的主要内容。作者主张我国合同法应将故意和重大过失的违约行为排除在可预见规则之外 ,以保护非违约方的利益和平衡双方当事人的利益     

《合同法》第113条第1款(违约损害的赔偿范围)评注

《合同法》第113条第1款确立了违约损害金钱赔偿责任的完全赔偿原则和可预见性限制规则,也适用于多种非违约型的义务违反情形。涉及履行利益和非履行利益的损害,都可能表现为实际损失或可得利益。以信赖利益范围为准的违约损害赔偿,填补的仍是履行利益损害。实际损失和可得利益在事实因果关系认定方面各有特点。可预见性规则的时点标准存在细化的可能。可预见性的判断因交易情境的差异而有不同。     

一方违约守约方行使合同解除权后，可得利益赔偿问题研究

合同当事人一方违约,守约方行使解除权的,根据我国《合同法》第97条之规定,守约方可以在解除合同同时要求违约方赔偿损失,但该条规定未明确损失赔偿的范围是否包括可得利益,在理论上和司法实践中。也没有形成统一的观点。本文从可得利益赔偿原则在我国发展的历史、世界各国损失赔偿制度的发展趋势以及现代合同法的价值取向的法理角度分析．认为合同解除后损失赔偿范围应当包括可得利益。     

合同解除后可得利益赔偿问题研究

因当事人一方违约导致合同法定解除时,对方当事人可以根据《合同法》要求损害赔偿,但损害赔偿的范围应如何确定,是否包括可得利益损失赔偿?我国学术界和实务界对此问题莫衷一是,也导致司法实践中,法院对解约后损害赔偿范围的判决结果各不相同。因此,研究研究合同解除后可得利益是否需要赔偿问题具有重要意义。故本文试图通过国外立法比较研究,评析各学派观点的利弊基础上,认为合同解除后需要赔偿可得利益的损失,以维护守约方的合法利益,督促当事人正确履约。     

浅论我国不安抗辩权制度对大陆法系不安抗辩权的突破

我国以前的《涉外经济合同法》借鉴了大陆法系的不安抗辩权,但由于大陆法系不安抗辩权制度在保护先履行义务方当事人利益方面与英美法系的预期违约制度相比,本身存在着固有缺陷.因此,我国新的合同法为有效保护先履行方的合法权益,在借鉴大陆法系不安抗辩权制度的基础上,还适当吸收了英美法系的预期违约制度的合理成分,建立起了具有我国自己特色,符合我国经济现实状况的不安抗辩权制度,它在许多方面对传统大陆法系的不安抗辩权制度有重大突破.     

论国际货物买卖合同的预期违约制度

预期违约是英美合同法上的特有制度。由于该制度基于合同法的诚实信用原则和公平原则,对平衡合同双方当事人的利益具有重要意义,因而《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》对其作出了规定,我国《合同法》也规定了预期违约制度。本文分析了公约的规定,将公约与英美法的预期违约进行了比较,并阐述了它们对完善我国合同法预期违约制度的借鉴价值。     

论诉讼证明的相对性

诉讼证明既是一种认识活动 ,又是一种诉讼行为 ,因此 ,除了应该遵循认识论的普遍规律外 ,还应接受程序法律和证据规则的调整和制约。认识本身的相对性和诉讼证明的特殊性决定了人们对案件事实的认识不可能达到与客观存在的案件事实完全一致、绝对真实的程度。基于诉讼证明的相对性原理 ,应当重塑我国刑事诉讼中定罪判决的证明标准 :其主观标准可以概括为“法官内心确信无疑” ,其客观标准则为“最大限度地符合或接近案件客观事实”。     

司法证明标准与乌托邦--答刘金友兼与张卫平、王敏远商榷

真理是人们对客观事物的正确认识 ,但是并非所有正确认识都可以称为真理 ,只有那些反映事物之客观规律的正确认识才是真理。司法证明结果可以是对客观事物的正确认识 ,但是不属于真理的范畴。实践是检验真理的标准 ,但不是检验人的一切认识正确与否的标准。司法证明的标准 ,是指司法证明必须达到的程度和水平。司法证明的标准可以分为三个层次。如何建构这三个层次的证明标准体系 ,是当前我国证据制度改革的重要任务之一。     

The “Production” of Corruption in China's Courts: Judicial Politics and Decision Making in a One‐Party State

Despite its rampant presence, judicial corruption in China has often been regarded as the idiosyncratically deviant behavior of a few black sheep eluding prescribed judicial conduct. This entrenched assumption has both discouraged in‐depth investigation of the phenomenon of judicial corruption and inhibited proper understanding of the functioning of China's courts. This article, based on an empirically grounded examination of the processing of court rulings tainted by corruption, showed that judicial corruption in China is an institutionalized activity systemically inherent in the particular decision‐making mechanism guided by the Chinese Communist Party's instrumental rule‐by‐law ideal. In investigating what has contributed to the institutionalization of judicial corruption, the interplay between law and party politics in China's courts was also examined. The findings, therefore, also shed light on behind‐the‐courtroom judicial activities and on the enduring perplexity of the gap between the law in the book and the law in action.     

Privative clauses in special education legislative schemes: are they constitutional under the Canadian Charter?

This paper suggests that privative clauses in the enabling statutes (Education Acts) governing provincially appointed special education appeal tribunals (SET) are unconstitutional under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is suggested that ‘final and binding’ SET decisions about children's designation as special needs and their educational placement infringe upon the Charter rights of both parent and exceptional child. The standard for judicial review of SET decisions, given a privative clause, is whether the decision is ‘patently unreasonable’ while ‘correctness’, according to case law, is the appropriate standard when finally determining fundamental rights. Parents of exceptional children in practice have recourse to the courts regarding only procedural rather than substantive issues regarding SET decisions due to the high deference the courts afford any administrat ive tribunal protected by a privative clause. The very high judicial review standard of ‘patently unreasonable’ rather than ‘correctness’ is not consistent, furthermore, with the child's ‘best interests’ or in meeting international obligations to disabled children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.     

The proof in law of suicide

The certification of suicide as the manner of death is frequently contested in court by the victim's survivors, particularly when there are life insurance benefits at stake. The evidence upon which the opinion of suicide is based must, therefore, meet the standard of proof required in law, if it is to be sustained by the courts. This standard of proof and some of its contingent common law doctrines are discussed, with references to several judicial opinions from cases which involved contested suicides.     

Surrogacy litigation in China and beyond

Chinese law neither generally prohibits nor expressly permits surrogacy. As there has been a massive underground surrogacy market in the country, surrogacy lawsuits have occurred from time to time. Chinese courts are called to decide a number of disputed issues regarding validity of surrogacy contract, parenthood of the surrogate child, and sole care and control of the surrogate child. This article examines the judicial solutions to these disputes through a case study, and analyses whether Chinese courts have adopted appropriate approaches in applying the existing law to surrogacy lawsuits. The article further discusses the inadequacies of Chinese law in solving surrogacy disputes and regulating surrogacy, and recommends a set of suggestions for improvement so that Chinese law may better adapt to the social demand of surrogacy.     

海上运输散货"合理损耗"短量索赔的抗辩

就海上运输散装货物后经常发生的货物短量索赔,从实体法和程序法的角度进行了分析,认为承运人和实际承运人对散货运输中发生的合理损耗范围内的货物短量不负赔偿责任从定性角度应没有异议,而如何证明个案中合理损耗具体数量或范围的定量举证则是能否成功抗辩的关键。     

The Right of Citizens to Appeal Acts by Officials to Courts

The increased role of the courts and enlarged judicial protection of citizens' rights enunciated in the USSR Constitution constitute a further development of Soviet socialist democracy. As we know, the notion of appealing to courts the acts of administrators was propounded by the founders of Marxism-Leninism themselves. (1) In the USSR, the foundations of the institution of judicial supervision of the functioning of the executive were established in the earliest years of Soviet power and were developed in the decree of the Central Executive Committee (TsIK) and Council of People's Commissars of April 11, 1937 - establishing judicial supervision over the activities of financial bodies in recovering from citizens arrears of federal and local taxes and levies, compulsory salary insurance, and local-option taxation - and in the Statute on Elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR affirmed by decree of the USSR TsIK of July 9, 1937, granting citizens the right to appeal to courts decisions of executive committees of soviets on refusal to make corrections in lists of voters. (2) This institution was subsequently developed in the Principles of Civil Procedure of the USSR and Union Republics and the corresponding codes of the union republics establishing procedural rules for trial by courts of cases arising out of relationships at administrative law.     

农村多元化纠纷解决机制中的司法救济

现代司法作为西方法治的舶来品对中国固有的司法传统带来了一定的冲击。在依法治国的今天,现代司法与中国传统的接触更多地表现在当下的农村社会。设置在乡镇中的人民法庭代表着司法权在基层社会中的渗透,作为一种权利救济途径的司法救济将民众与人民法庭联系到一起,将传统的纠纷解决模式与现代司法联系到一起。在这个传统与现代相互交错的时代,我们应当关注于司法救济如何落实抑或人民法庭如何在基层扎根。     

程序法与实体法关系考辨——兼论程序优先理论

程序法与实体法的关系可以从两个方面来理解 :一方面 ,程序法对实体法的实施起着保障作用。这是程序法对于实体法的工具性价值。但是 ,不容忽视的是 ,另一方面程序法相对于实体法也具有某种独立性 ,程序法同时也具有自身的独立性价值。由于实体公正的不确定性以及程序公正的相对确定性 ,在程序公正与实体公正发生冲突的情况下 ,应当坚持程序公正优先。