论违约损害赔偿中的减轻损害规则

【作者】 马荔；

【导师】 苏号朋；

【作者基本信息】 对外经济贸易大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 减损规则最先是从英美法上发展出来的，在英美国家，“受害人必须采取合理措施确保因对方违约造成之损害的最小化，这是一条为人熟知的普通法原则。”大陆法上对此或是欠缺规定，或是纳入过失相抵，而国际公约等对减损规则多有肯认。 我国立法关于减损规则的规定主要体现为《民法通则》第114条及《合同法》第119条。对于减损规则，学者通说认为其根据在于诚信原则，同时也是为了减少浪费，鼓励节约，优化资源配置及增进经济效益。 本文正文分为六个部分。在第一部分里，本文阐述了减损规则的含义与理论基础。本文介绍了英美法系、大陆法系及中国学者对减损规则的不同见解，对减损规则的理论基础及功能进行了论述。在第二部分里，本文描述了减损规则的起源与发展，从买卖合同、租赁合同、建筑合同、雇佣合同等案例中提炼出精辟的法律规则。 在第三部分里，本文对不同国家的减损舰则立法进行了比较和分析。在第四部分里，本文提出了减损规则行为合理性的判断标准，即合理人标准、善意标准、经济合理标准。 在第五部分里，本文提出了减损规则的措施：停止工作、替代安排、变更合同、继续履行。在第六部分里，本文描述了减损规则与预期违约、过失相抵、损益相抵的关系。 本文考察和研究了减损规则的起源与发展，并对不同国家减损规则进行分析比较，收集、参考了大量的中外文献和资料，加以综合和分析，以科学的态度，从实际出发，提出了自己的观点和建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 The rule of mitigaton is the law does not allow a plaintiff to recover damages to compensate him for loss which would not have been suffered if he had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss.The thesis introduces the basic concepts, the functions, the measure and theory basement of the rule of mitigation. The purpose of the rules on mitigation is to prevent the waste of resources in society, since they are obviously limited.There are three rules often referred to under the comprehensive heading of "mitigation": they will be considered in turn. First, the plaintiff can not recover damages for any part of his loss consequent upon the defendant’s breach of contract which the plaintiff could have avoided by taking reasonable steps. Secondly, if the plaintiff in fact avoids or mitigates his loss consequent upon the defendant’s breach, he can not recover for such avoided loss, even though the steps he took were more than could be reasonably required of him under the first rule. Thirdly, where the plaintiff incurs loss or expense in the course of taking reasonable steps to mitigate the loss resulting from the defedant’s breach, the plaintiff may recover this further loss or expense from the defendant, even when the mitigating steps were unsuccessful or in fact led to greater loss.Mitigation only requires the plaintiff to act ’reasonably’ in all the circumstances. But there is no obligation to do anything other than in the ’ordinary course of business’ and it is a question of fact in each case wheather the plaintiff has acted as a reasonable person might have been expected to act. The standard of judgement is reasonable diligence, ordinary care, common sense, good faith and fair dealing.The thesis also introduces the relatonship between the rule of mitigation, contributory negligence and anticipatory breach.更多还原