损害赔偿法的重新构建:欧洲经验与欧洲趋势

近年来,欧洲各国针对损害赔偿法采取了不同形式的修订工作,主要趋势体现在:责任认定运行按比例责任分担,规定一般条款,明确保护的法益范围,重点规定因果联系中复杂问题,过错标准,违法性要件的地位,不作为责任的认定,扩大雇主责任范围,企业责任日益严格,危险责任地位不断提高,针对侵权责任设定必要的限制参考因素。     

法定赔偿与惩罚性赔偿条款关系辨析《商标法》与《专利法》修改草案惩罚性赔偿条款之对比分析

惩罚性赔偿条款引入知识产权立法中的呼声颇高,《商标法》的修正案首先得以确立,《专利法》的修改草案中亦有体现.但二者在法定赔偿与惩罚性赔偿的关系上存在着分歧,前者采用单一性模式,后者采用兼容性模式.从惩罚性赔偿的功能、适用条件以及法定赔偿替代惩罚功能的角度考虑,单一性模式更符合惩罚性赔偿条款的设立本意,更契合惩罚性赔偿基本理论.因此,《专利法》乃至《著作权法》的修改应当参考新《商标法》的规定采取单一性模式并提高法定赔偿数额之上限.     

Exemplary Damages in Equity: A Law and Economics Perspective

In Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd (2003) 56 NSWLR 298, the NewSouth Wales Court of Appeal held that exemplary (or punitive)damages are not available for breach of fiduciary duty or otherequitable obligation. The decision runs counter to authoritiesin Canada, New Zealand and some U.S. states. Punitive (exemplary)damages is a hotly debated topic in the United States and ithas attracted considerable interest among law and economicsscholars, particularly in the tort litigation context. Thisarticle analyzes the Digital Pulse case from a law and economicsperspective. Polinsky and Shavell (among others) argue thatthe function of punitive damages is to achieve optimal deterrencein cases where the probability that the plaintiff will discoverand successfully litigate the defendant’s wrongdoing isless than 1. Given the high costs of monitoring fiduciary behaviour,it might be tempting to conclude that exemplary damages shouldbe routinely awarded for breach of fiduciary obligation. Thearticle explains why this view is wrong. On the other hand,given the availability of gains-based remedies (the accountof profits and the like) for breach of fiduciary obligation,it might be tempting to conclude that exemplary damages arenever justified in fiduciary cases. The article explains whythis view is wrong too. The main conclusions are that: (1) exemplarydamages should be available for breach of fiduciary duty andthe like, but not as a matter of course; and (2) exemplary damageswere probably not warranted in Digital Pulse itself.     

惩罚性赔偿的立法选择

惩罚性赔偿制度的出现有其深厚的时代背景,但其在两大法系的发展中却有着基本不同的轨迹.本文通过梳理惩罚性赔偿的基本理论,讨论惩罚性赔偿与精神损害赔偿的关系,认为在我国正在起草的侵权责任法典中,非财产损失的赔偿应以精神损害赔偿为主,在个别侵权类型中可以有限度地引入惩罚性赔偿制度.     

The Irreducible Core of the Duty of Care,Skill and Diligence of Company Directors: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey

The decision in ASIC v Healey raises hitherto unexplored questions about the standard of care of non‐executive directors in monitoring the production of financial statements. More particularly, it considers the power of directors to delegate areas of responsibility requiring specialist knowledge and the degree of permissible reliance on professional advisers. The reasoning of the judge will doubtless prove helpful to the English courts not only in relation to duty of care issues under section 174 of the Companies Act 2006, but also when considering the duty to exercise independent judgment which is now restated in section 173.