【作者】 赖家明；

【导师】 时显群；

【作者基本信息】 西南大学 ， 民商法学， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 违约金制度历史悠久,在世界各国都有很广泛的运用,我国《合同法》114条也对违约金进行了规定,但无论是理论界还是实践中对违约金的本质属性、与其他民事责任的区别、该制度的价值、调整幅度等认识还较为模糊。本文旨在通过对违约金及违约金调整制度的分析,重新界定违约金的性质、价值,在分析我国目前立法、司法实践中存在问题的基础上,提出自己的观点供学界参考,以期建立一个较为清晰的违约金调整制度。论文分为序言、本论两部分,除序言外,共四部分。文章本论部分的主要内容如下：第一部分,违约金调整概论。通过对违约金基本问题的考察,论述了违约金及违约金调整的起源、概念、法律特征、构成要件、性质、违约金调整的理论基础等。本文认为,不能简单地将违约金的性质界定为补偿性或惩罚性,而应承认二者在一定条件下是存在交叉状态的,同时明确不赞同学界主流观点“目的论”。第二部分,国内外及地区有关违约金调整的立法及司法实践。文章分别对英美法系、大陆法系国家的立法、司法实践进行考察,其中英美法系国家选择了英国、美国,大陆法系国家选择了法国、德国及日本作为典型。另外,作者还将我国近年来有关违约金的法律法规、相关司法解释进行相应的考察。第三部分,立法、司法中违约金调整存在的问题。文章认为,我国违约金立法中存在调整违约金请求权行使期限不明确、有关请求迟延履行赔偿规定不明的问题,在司法实践中存在法官释明权的滥用、实践中判断违约金数额过高或过低标准不一、对“适当减少”含义众说纷纭等问题。第四部分,有关违约金调整立法及司法建议。作者针对前文提出的问题逐一提出对策,在立法方面,应对调整违约金请求权形式的期限进行一定的限制、重新探讨迟延履行赔偿的相关理论,在司法方面,法官应当严格把握释明权适用范围、明确违约金调整的标准、如何界定“过分高于”及“适当减少”的含义。更多还原

【Abstract】 Liquidated damages system has a long history and it is widely used in the world. In China’s "Contract Law", item 114 also provides it. But whatever in theoretical or practical circles, people have obscure knowledge about the nature of liquidated damages to the property, the differences of other civil liability, the value of the system and the range of adjustment. This paper aims to redefine the nature of liquidated damages and value by analyzing penalty and its adjustment system, basing on the analysis of our country’s current legislation and the existing problems in judicial practice, then puts forward the views for the academic references, in the hope of establishing a more clear-cut liquidated damages’adjustment system. This paper is divided into preface and the principal argument, besides preface, a total of four parts’main elements of principal argument are as follows:The first part, the introduction to the penalty adjustment. By examing the fundamental issues of liquidated damages, it discusses liquidated damages itself and the origin of its adjustment, concepts, legal characteristics, composition elements, its nature and the adjustment’s theoretical foundations. This paper considers that people can not simply define the nature of liquidated damages as compensatory or punitive, but should admit that the two are in cross-state under certain circumstance. Meanwhile, disagrees with Academia’s view of "teleology".The second part, it mainly discusses the legislation of liquidated damages’ adjustment and its judicial practice home and abroad. This artice investigates separately the legislation and the judicial practice of Anglo-American legal system and civil law system countries. It chooses the United Kingdom and the United States as typical cases for Anglo-American legal system, and chooses France, Germany and Japan as the other civil law system’s representative. Furthernore, the author will investigate the laws and regulations relating to liquidated damages of recent years and the relevant judicial interpretations.The third part, the existing problems of liquidated damages’adjustment in legislation and judicial. In China, there are existing many problems in liquidated damages’legislation, for example, the time limit of the adjustment for the penalty to request that the power exercises is not clear, the related request delay fulfillment compensation stipulation is also unclear, the abuse of judge’s interpreting right in judicial practice, the different standards of liquidated damages amount in judicial practice, and different opinions on "appropriate reduction".The fourth part, the legislation of liquidated damages adjustment and the judicial advice. The author puts forward the solutions of the list questions above. In legislation, people should restrict the deadline of adjusting the form of contigent claim and re-discuss the related theory of delaying fulfilling compensation. In judicial, the judge should be strict to the scope of interpretation right, clear and define the standard of liquidated damages’adjustment, and how to define the meaning of "excessively high " and "appropriate reduction".更多还原