【作者】 王文彬；

【导师】 赵小平；

【作者基本信息】 四川大学 ， 法律， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 精神损害赔偿是一个一直存有争议的法律问题。传统民法理论认为，违约责任是一种财产责任，其制度功能是补偿，违约责任不应该包括具有惩罚性质的精神损害赔偿。精神损害赔偿只能限于侵权法领域。如违约行为导致了非财产损害，非违约方只能依据违约责任和侵权责任竞合的制度，通过侵权之诉获得精神损害赔偿。本文对这种观点提出了质疑，认为通过责任竞合对违约受害人的精神损害进行救济是不充分的，在一些合同中违约的精神损害是客观存在且完全可以预见的，通过合同法对此加以救济也是完全可行的，因此，此种精神损害赔偿应该纳入违约损害赔偿的范围之内。在制度设计上，应该确立违约精神损害赔偿的一般允许原则。但是，为了防止对被害人精神利益的保护被无限扩大和违约精神损害赔偿被滥用，使违约精神损害赔偿与社会经济发展相适应，需要对违约精神损害赔偿进行某些限制，并可对可给予精神损害赔偿的合同进行类型化，以供法官判案时参考。本文除了前言和结语外，包括四章的内容。第一章是违约适用精神损害赔偿的问题的提出。首先，作者阐释了精神损害及违约精神损害的概念和特征。其次，通过比较法研究，考察各国对违约精神损害赔偿的态度。大陆法系国家突破了精神损害必须法有明文规定才能予以赔偿的限制，英美法国家通过判例的形式对可予精神损害赔偿的合同类型化，一些国际法文件，更是以立法的形式支持了违约情形下的精神损害赔偿。再次，作者提出了一些中国大陆的判决先例，在对其案情及判决理由进行分析后，说明我国大陆司法界在违约精神损害赔偿问题上的观点和做法并不一致的情况。第二章是学者对违约适用精神损害赔偿的观点及其作者的评析。我国的法律上没有明确规定违约精神损害赔偿问题，学者在违约可否适用精神损害赔偿的问题上存在很大的争议，但通说是否认违约的非财产损害赔偿。本章通过对学者们提出的否定精神损害赔偿理由(包括可预见性规则障碍、取证与损失估算困难障碍、侵权予违约责任竞合制度障碍等)的评析，得出这些反对理由均不能成为违约适用精神损害赔偿的障碍的结论。第三章在对传统否定违约精神损害赔偿观点进行反驳的基础上，作者试图从理论上探求给予非财产上损害赔偿的正当性。首先，在违约责任中精神损害是客观存在的而且具有可补偿性。其次，合同法中的完全赔偿原则也要求违约精神损害赔偿。再次，主要解决是加害给付的问题。对于加害给付问题的处理，主要是看加害给付所造成的两种不同类别的损害是否能构成独立的诉因。如果其能分别构成独立的诉因，则可分别起诉。如果加害给付所造成的固有利益损害并不能构成独立的诉因，则应当在立法上允许其依附于违约之诉得到赔偿。第四章是我国违约精神损害赔偿制度构建的几点建议。第一节，笔者从合理预见原则、最低限度损害原则、减轻损失规则及过失相抵规则和不可抗力等方面对违约责任的精神损害进行适当的限制，将其适用控制在适当的范围内，以求能防止精神损害赔偿在合同领域的泛滥，充分发挥合同法鼓励交易、保护当事人合法权益的作用。第二节是以列举的方式将可以给予精神损害赔偿的合同进行了类型化，并分别举出了相应的案例。更多还原

【Abstract】 The compensation for moral damage is a controversial legal problem. The traditional civil law theories think on that the liability for breach of contract is a kind of property responsibility and its system function is compensation. So the liability for breach of contract should not include the compensation for moral damage.The compensation for moral damage can only be limited to the realm of tort law. Once breach of obligation resulted moral damage, contract-abiding party can only appeals to breach of contract obligation and tort liability coinciding system, by tort suit to obtain compensation for moral damage. According to this kind of theories, the academia of our country has made a clear distinction between the liability for breach of contract and liability for tort. According to this division, compensation for moral damage in breach of contract can only be claimed in the realm of tort law. This dissertation contests to this view and thinks on that it is an objective reality that the spirit in some contracts is damaged by breach of contract and can be predicted too, it is insufficient to compensate the damage through coincidental liability, so, the compensation for moral damage should be included in the liability for breach of contract. We should build a general principle that compensationfor breach of contract is allowed. But, in order to prevent the protection of spirit benefit being infinitely enlarged and the compensation from being abused, we should strictly control the application the compensation for moral damage in breach of contract by law. Moreover, the author adopts the mode of classifying the contracts concerning the moral damage compensation by enumerate the contracts, so the judges could use these as reference materials when announcing verdicts.This dissertation includes four chapters except preface and epilogue.Chapter one, the author puts forward the question of compensation for moral damage in breach of contract. Firstly, the author explains the concept and characteristic of moral damage and moral damage in breach of contract. Secondly, introduces the different attitudes towards compensation for moral damage in breach of contract in different countries. Continental legal system breaks the stipulation that moral damage could be recoverable only if it is definitely stipulated in the law. Anglo-American legal system classifies the compensation for moral damage resulted from breaching of contract through cases. Some international legal documents stipulate it definitely. Thirdly, the author prefers to some main land’ s prejudication, then, after analyses, to state the inconsistent of our judicial practices.Chapter two, the author collects and analyzes theories of compensation for moral damage in breach of contract in China. Our country currently has not made a clear regulation to compensation for moral damage in breach of contract, so the scholars have heavy dispute about this question, it is generally held that compensation for moral damage is not recoverable in contract. However some scholars have put forward the opposite views. Through the evaluation and analysis of the views which are putforward by the scholars to deny the compensation for breach of contract, including obstacle of prediction rule, obstacle of breach of obligation and moral damage compensation testimony and Evaluation, obstacle of liability coinciding system, we can find out that these reasons can’t become the obstacles which hinder compensation for moral damage in breach of contract.Chapter three, On the base of retorting the traditional concept of denying compensation for moral damage in breach of contract, the author try to to make a thorough inquiry into the justice and reasonability of compensation for moral damage in breach of contract. Firstly, it is an objective reality that spirit is damaged and can be compensated in breach of contract. Secondly, only if damage in breach of contract be compensated, benefits of contractor can be wholely protected. Thirdly, The author thinks whether the damages to the inhere benefits consist of independent cause of a sue or not should be judged when inflict present is exist If the damage to inhere benefits is a independent cause of sue, it could be excluded from the expectant benefits one to go to the court, but the procedure rule of one thing having no reason for again judge" should be broken here, the unsatisfied pleas should be contented through the sue of impeach or tort .While, if the inhere benefits damages could not consist independent cause of sue, the damages could be satisfied by the sue of impeach.Chapter four, author gives some advises of the system construction on our country’s moral damage compensation. Section one, author Provides some restrictive elements to restrict the application scope, such as principle of forseeability, principle of minimal damage etc. then, we can restrict the application of compensation for moral damage to a reasonable scope and prevent the blind requirement for high compensation so as to achieve the legislative purpose of contract law that is to encourage deals and also protect the aggrieved party. Section two, the author adopts the mode of classifying the contracts concerning the moral damage compensation by enumerate the contracts.更多还原