|
【範文】
•電子報登載:92/04
 |
Since
the purpose of damages
for breach of
contract is to compensate
the injured party for the loss
caused by the breach .... Those damages
are generally measured by the plaintiff's
actual loss....
While on occasion the defendant's profits
are used as the measure of damages ....
[T]his generally occurs when those profits
tend to define the plaintiff's loss,
for an award of the defendant's profits
where they greatly exceed
the plaintiff's loss and there has been
no tortious conduct
on the part of the defendant would tend
to be punitive, and punitive
awards are not part of the law of contract
damages.
Restatement (Second) of Contracts §
356 comment a ("The central objective
behind the system of contract
remedies is compensatory,
not punitive."); id. comment b
(agreement attempting to fix damages
in amount vastly greater than what approximates
actual loss would be unenforceable
as imposing a penalty);
id. § 355 (punitive
damages not recoverable
for breach of contract unless conduct
constituting
the breach is also a tort for which
such damages are recoverable). |
|
 |
引自:
United States Navel Institute v. Charter Communications,
Inc., 936 F.2d 692, 696-97 (2nd Cir. 1991).
【單字及慣用語】
【範文中譯】
違反契約損害賠償的目的係在於填補當事人一造因違約所受之損害。損害的計算通常以原告實際所受之損害為計算。然有時亦以被告所受之利益來計算損害賠償。當被告所獲之利益遠超過原告所受之損害時,且違約行為並未伴隨者侵權行為時,此超出原告實際損害之損害賠償額就被告而言,含有懲罰的性質。然懲罰性的損害賠償並非屬違反契約的損害賠償。
契約法彙編二,第三百五十六條法條評註(a):「契約損賠的目地係在於填補損害,而非在於懲罰。」同前條項評註(b):「超過實際損害之損害賠償額,如同課予違約當事人懲罰,然此一懲罰性損害賠償於法律上係屬不可執行。」第三百五十五條:「除違約行為同時構成侵權行為外,否則,懲罰性損害賠償是不被允許的。」
【本案例所確立之法規則】
Courts
will not grant punitive
damages for a breach of contract.
(違約損害賠償的範圍,僅限於當事人一造所受實際上的損害。懲處性損害賠償,在違反契約的情況下是不被允許的。)
【國內相關法律議題】
英美法上有所謂的「懲罰性損害賠償」,於加害人有故意或重大過失時,法院得命加害人給付超過實際損害之懲罰性損害賠償。相較於此,我國民法第二百一十六條第一項則規定:「損害賠償,除法律另有規定或契約另有訂定外,應以填補債權人所受損害及所失利益為限。」由此可知,若非法律另有規定或契約另有訂定兩者情況,我國原則上不承認懲罰性損害賠償。
所謂法律另有規定,例如我國民法第十八條及就慰撫金之規定即為一例(*註) 。契約另有訂定之情況可舉違約金(default
penalty)之約定為例,因為違約金是可以由契約雙方約定一定數額作為違約之賠償,若實際損害並未達違約金金額時仍應全額給付,其中即存在有某種懲罰違約一方之意味的性格,並有嚇阻對方不可違約之作用。
*註:通說(參照王澤鑑教授,民法學說與判例研究(2))認為慰撫金仍然是屬於損害賠償之一環,但我國最高法院五十一年台上字第二二三號判例有云:「慰撫金之賠償需以人格權遭遇侵害……其核給之標準…….非不可斟酌雙方身份、資力與加害程度及其他各種情形,核定相當之數額。」至其計算標準將「加害程度」納入考量,既係將加害人之惡性(過失程度與故意)等納入考量,則自然含有某種程度的制裁成分。
|