Performance and Compensation: An Analysis of Contract Damages and Contractual Obligation

Although there is an increasing body of opinion that awardsof damages for breach of contract should take account of theclaimant’s performance interest, there has been littlein the way of analysis of what the performance interest is.Commonly the concept is put forward as simply a reformulationor reconceptualization of the expectation interest, itself hithertoregarded as the one true contractual interest. Such thinkingis flawed. A closer analysis of contract doctrine shows thereto be two distinct contractual interests; in receiving performance,and in being compensated for losses caused by non-performance.Receiving compensatory damages for non-performance is not thesame as receiving performance. At present, this important differenceis not fully appreciated, resulting in a failure to developa principled approach to the claims that can be made followinga breach of contract. Recognition of this distinction forcesus to confront the fundamental question of how committed weare to the notion that contracts entail a right to performance.This article examines the distinction between these two interests,how the performance interest may be given effect by a damagesaward, and what the consequences of this analysis are for ourunderstanding of the nature of contractual obligation.     

主合同无效后担保权存续论

从属性更恰当的表达是担保权从属于主债权,而非担保合同从属于主合同。尊重这一前提,通过类推适用主合同解除后担保权存续之逻辑、基于实证法上的个别示例以及受比较法的启发,主合同无效后担保权在返还清算关系中原则上应存续,但该存续应尊重保证人及物上担保人享有的期限利益以及诚信原则。担保权主要是在债权人先履行时,为防止债务人届期清偿不能而予以设立的,主合同无效并不消灭这一风险,无效宣告后债务人的返还义务替代其合同债务,为防范该风险而设立的担保权也应存续,这也符合当事人缔约时之意思。主合同无效后担保权存续主要适用于债务人一方返还的情形。     

租赁标的瑕疵与合同救济

租赁标的使用存在公法限制,构成瑕疵;其救济路径除依瑕疵担保主张违约责任之外,尚有依意思表示存在瑕疵(重大误解或者欺诈)主张撤销合同的可能;两种救济路径可由当事人选择。由于权利瑕疵与物的瑕疵在我国法中的构成要件及法律后果均有差异,故对于两类瑕疵进行区分,仍有实际需要。中国合同法在统合瑕疵担保与违约责任的道路上,仍有必要百尺竿头、更进一步。权利瑕疵与物的瑕疵在此处的区分,并无"标准答案";我国实务以标的物受公法限制为一种物的瑕疵,值得赞同。检验通知义务属于不真正义务,检验期间属于除斥期间。瑕疵担保义务属于主给付义务的内容,在其违反具有重大性而使合同目的无法实现场合,可以发生解除权。减价责任的适用通常因当事人行使减价权而引出,惟亦不妨裁判者不经当事人主张而适用减价责任。减价责任虽系物的瑕疵场合的法律后果,在权利瑕疵场合,亦有类推适用的余地。     

Concurrent Duties

This paper offers an account of concurrent liability, and in particular the existence of, and interaction between, concurrent contractual and non‐contractual duties. It argues for five essential propositions: (1) a defendant can owe simultaneous private law duties towards a claimant, the content of which overlaps in whole or in part; (2) cases of concurrent liability in contract and negligence involve independent duties, which are concurrent but not coextensive; (3) the doctrine of concurrent liability is conceptually distinct from the rule that the claimant must elect between inconsistent remedies; (4) if the defendant commits a wrong in breach of more than one duty, the claimant has a prima facie choice to sue for any of those breaches; and (5) the content of one any duty might affect the content of the other. The last of these principles, it is argued, provide an explanation for the recent decisions in Wellesley Partners v Withers and AIB v Mark Redler.     

《民法典》第584条(违约损害赔偿范围)评注

《民法典》第584条为有关违约损害赔偿范围的规定,可从事实因果关系和法律因果关系两个视角进行分析。事实因果关系视角下,应注意区分履行利益、信赖利益和返还利益。在因解除而发生的违约损害赔偿的计算中,应注意履行利益和返还利益的关系,避免重复计算。违约损害赔偿范围的决定中,确定性问题位于事实因果关系层面,是事后判断;而可预见性问题位于法律因果关系层面,是事前判断。若涉及确定性问题,确定性问题的探讨应在可预见性问题之前。     

Supply chains,contractual governance and certification regimes

Contractual governance of the food supply chain is on the rise. In this paper we focus on a particular set of instruments for transnational governance of food supply chains: transnational contracts and agreements. Looking at transnational contracts as instruments for implementation of transnational private regulation, we compare different mechanisms for the enforcement of safety and sustainability standards in global food supply chains. We conclude that the regime of contractual remedies follows different logics from the ones of regulatory and certification regime. (1) The former aims at redressing the victim of the breach inducing compliance through a re-active approach; whereas the latter pro-actively tries to restore compliance with regulatory process in order to pursue regulatory objectives. (2) The former focuses mainly on products, the latter on process. (3) The former concentrates on individual transactions while the latter focuses on the interdependence of contractual relationships along the chain and creates collective governance mechanisms. This paper suggests that the combination of the two sets of remedies may reinforce coordination and cooperation along the chain, therefore improving the level of quality, safety or sustainability of certified production. A higher level of awareness about the impact of standards and certification on the contract rules on remedies can have other positive consequences: it may improve contract drafting, leading the parties to coordinate different remedial systems when addressing the consequences of the breach and the ones of certification remedies; it may help courts to better define the scope and preconditions of contractual remedies and their effects on transnational regulation; it may guide law makers and standard setting institutions, when providing principles, rules or guidance concerning the consequences of the breach within contracts and along the chain, particularly in the food sector. From this perspective, the current work conducted by Unidroit and Fao for the production of a Legal Guide on contract farming could represent an important opportunity to define the links between multiple remedial regimes in food chains.     

出卖人的物的瑕疵担保责任与我国合同法

出卖人的物的瑕疵担保责任在我国合同法上已经被统合进了违约责任,我国法奉行的是违约责任“单轨制”,而不是违约责任与瑕疵担保责任并存的“双轨制”。我国法上的违约责任是一个统一的概念,应当作统一的解释,不宜人为地制造分裂。解释论上主张物的瑕疵担保责任相对独立存在,是在变相地肯定“双轨制”,本身是一种叠床架屋的构造。     

预期违约与不安抗辩权比较研究--兼评我国《合同法》第68、69、94和108条的立法缺失

英美法系的预期违约制度与大陆法系的不安抗辩权制度都是为了防止一方当事人先期违约而设立的,两种制度在各自法系的实践中都取得了相应的司法实效。但现在看来,预期违约制度相对来说比不安抗辩权制度更为完善。我国《合同法》同时规定两种制度,这种立法例的成败得失值得研究。将两种功能相同的制度规定在同一部法律中,显得重叠与矛盾,故建议修改现行《合同法》,废除不完善的不安抗辩权制度,只规定预期违约制度为宜,实现合同法的效益、安全、公平的价值。     

合同实际履行与损害赔偿制度的经济学思考

合同违约责任的救济措施主要有实际履行与损害赔偿两种,大陆法系强调实际履行的重要性,而英美法系更注重损害赔偿的救济功能,从我国国情和微观经济学的角度出发,我国合同违约救济措施应采纳大陆法系的"严格的效率违约"理论,即原则上应以实际履行为主要救济措施,在实际履行明显不符合效率原则时强调损害赔偿的救济功能,只有这样才能使双方当事人付出的成本最低,而收益最大.     

Remedies for damage to property: money damages or restitution in natura?

This paper compares the tort remedies of money damages and restitution in natura from an efficiency perspective. Although there is a parallel between these remedies and the remedies for breach of contract, i.e. money damages and specific performance, the analysis is fundamentally different in torts, because of the high transaction costs involved. The basis of the comparison is the relation of each of the remedies to the subjective loss for the victim. The conclusion drawn is that no rule is generally preferable, so it is crucial to sort the different types of cases and apply in each of them the remedy, which is better suited. On this premise, are evaluated the relevant rules of Germany, England and France, since each legal system tackles this issue differently.     

Contract Rights and Remedies,and the Divergence between Law and Morality*

Abstract. There is an ongoing debate in the philosophical and jurisprudential literature regarding the nature and possibility of Contract theory. On one hand, are those who argue (or assume) that there is, or should be, a single, general, universal theory of Contract Law, one applicable to all jurisdictions and all times. On the other hand, are those who assert that Contract theory should be localized to particular times and places, perhaps even with different theories for different types of agreements. This article considers one facet of this debate: evaluating the relevance of the fact that the remedies available for breach of contract can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another. This wide variation in remedies for breach of a (contractual) promise is one central difference between promises in morality and enforceable agreements in law. The article asserts that variation of remedies strongly supports the conclusion that there is (and can be) no general, universal theory of Contract Law.     

违约金的类型构造

违约金规则以任意性规范为主,其中既包含一个法定模范类型,也允许当事人另作约定形成意定类型.这一规范逻辑决定了违约金类型构造的必要性.当前主流学说的构造方案符合该规范逻辑,理论出发点亦卓具贡献,但囿于标准单一且未重视类型要素在利益衡量上的强度差异,在司法实践中仍不乏疑义.考察德国法上区分违约金和损害赔偿概括计算条款的判例、学说与立法演进,可提炼更为丰富的类型要素并作强度分析,形成违约金的类型谱系.以之为背景定位中国法的法定模范类型和各种意定类型,就能全面厘清各类型的规范适用问题.不同类型承载了不同的自治意思,通过类型构造把握各种类型,可以确保规范适用时尽可能地尊重私法自治.     

Restitutionary Remedies in the Contractual Context

Contracting parties sometimes have a claim to recover money paid in advance, or for reasonable payment for work done under the contract, commonly described as restitutionary remedies. This claim arising out of a contract is nowadays generally regarded as a non‐contractual, unjust enrichment claim governed by the modern law of unjust enrichment, by contrast with a contractual claim for damages or specific performance. The article argues that the claim is contractual, and that this is relevant to determining when it should be available and what the measure of recovery should be. In particular, it is argued that this follows from the proper understanding of the form of agreement made by contracting parties. The argument involves discussion of doctrinal categories such as contract and unjust enrichment, the relationship between primary and remedial rights in contract, the nature of contractual agreement, and the protection of reliance in contract.     

对加害给付概念与救济的再思考

加害给付是合同一方当事人侵害对方当事人固有利益的违约行为,构成违约责任与侵权责任竞合,受损害方有权在二者中选择其一保护其利益。这是我国关于加害给付的主导观点,其影响了我国合同法第122条。然而,这种观点是否得当颇值商榷。加害给付应为债务人有责违反合同义务,给债权人造成履行利益以外的人身、财产利益损害并不排除可能同时侵害债权人履行利益的行为;对于加害给付的救济并非只能依据合同法第122条规定的责任竞合来处理,而应根据加害给付侵害的利益区别对待。     

Against Lumley v Gye

The Lumley v Gye tort of inducing a breach of contract is the foundation of strike law, although it also has a wider commercial role. We should reject the view that Lumley liability follows automatically from general contractual liability. Contract law is optional. Imposing its obligations on unwilling parties requires special justification. We should also be sceptical about the claim that Lumley liability increases confidence that contracts will be enforced. Such scepticism should be enhanced by parallels between Lumley liability and restitutionary damages for breach of contract. Some Lumley cases illustrate the point that 'efficient breach of contract' has a moral core, not just an economic core. For example, it can sometimes be unreasonable and unjust for parties to insist on precise contractual performance when they know that circumstances have changed in ways that the contract did not anticipate. For all these reasons the justification defence to Lumley should be widened.     

契约理念引入行政法的背景分析——基础与条件

市场经济和市场经济下的行政机关与公民的关系 ,既是行政法和契约的基础 ,也构成了二者结合的基础 ;民主为契约理念在行政法中的确立奠定了观念与制度的基础 ,也正是民主孕育着行政法的契约精神 ,而行政职能的转变及多元化行政的出现 ,为契约在行政法中的应用提供了广阔的空间 ;法治理念与契约理念有着异曲同工之妙 ,二者互为基础 ;立法对契约的规定与行政的实际运作 ,表明了契约理念的确立已具有现实的可行与必要。契约理念确立的条件 ,可从行政、行政相对人、行政关系中的利益及契约与依法行政的结合等方面来解读 :行政的开放性与文化支撑性、行政相对人的独立性和参与性、行政关系中不同利益的可交换性、契约与依法行政的相融性。     

经济损失规则的边界功能

经济损失规则的概念和适用范围仍是争议的主题,这一规则本身的混乱伴随着该规则产生原因的更大的不确定性.区分侵权法和合同法的边界功能是经济损失规则令人信服的理论基础,但是一些重要的原则限制了边界功能的适用范围.在涉及合同关系的案件中解释及适用经济损失规则,只有关注诉讼当事人的实际行动才能恰当地实现该规则的边界功能.首先,如果原告不是某个协议的当事人,那么就没有任何理由限制原告依据侵权法享有的任何权利.其次,不能基于一个不是真实存在的合同提供的假想救济以及合同对纯粹经济损失的补偿具有假想的优先权限制原告的权利.再次,如果被告违反了一项独立于合同责任的侵权法义务,当事人之间的合同没有明确地或足够充分地暗示取代侵权法的救济,当事人则有权获得侵权法的救济.     

Content and Access Agreements: An Analysis of Some of the Legal Issues Arising from Linking and Framing

This paper examines the subject of content and access agreements with a detailed analysis of the legal issues that arise from linking and framing. The law is examined from a UK perspective with a detailed study of significant developments in the USA. The main focus of the discussion is on copyright and contract, but the subject of trespass is also considered to cover those situations where contract and copyright remedies may not be available. The copyright analysis reveals uncertainty in the extent of the protection offered and this has had the effect of encouraging the use of contractual licences. Detailed consideration is given to the use and enforceability of such contractual licences and to the actual and potential problems of their increasing use. The paper shows that there are advantages and disadvantages associated with both copyright and contract and certain conceptual difficulties in the use of trespass are discussed. Nevertheless the factors identified and the expected continuation of existing trends show that the use of licences and formal agreements relating to linking and access will increase, especially where commercial actors have perceived strong interests to protect.     

共同法律行为理论的初步构建——以公司设立为分析对象

共同法律行为相对于契约行为,具有表意人身份相同、意思表示内容相同、意思表示方向相同、意思表示所指向的目标实体相同等特点,这些特点是共同行为理论创立的基础。共同法律行为在成立和生效要件、法律效果、特别是在责任救济方面,有着不同于契约行为的独特之处。共同行为的本质特性是指向特定的目标实体,违反共同法律行为,必然首先损害目标实体的利益,同时也可能直接损害其他行为人的利益,导致双重责任的产生。共同行为理论在对公司法现象的解释力上要明显优越于公司契约理论。     

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。