摘要
违约金酌减已有诸多规范研究,但运用计量分析模型进行结果预测的研究尚属空白。现行法上的违约金过高判断依据单一,司法实践中无统一的裁判标准,预测研究可解决这些难题。通过对部分法官的结构性访谈,在预测研究之前可以厘清样本抽取和变量设置的规则。以中国裁判文书网相关判决书为样本,量化分析研究发现:判断违约金过高以高于实际损失的30%为标准确为合理,但还应当增加合同标的额的20%、合同履行程度两项标准;在违约金是否酌减和是否全减方面,违约方主观恶意越严重,或者越考虑到行业交易习惯、客观情节,违约金减少的可能性越小,越考虑到实际损失违约金全部减去的可能性也越小;在考量因素中,约定违约金占合同总价的比例以及预期利益对违约金酌减成数有显著影响;不同性质、不同合同类型的违约金,对酌减结果有显著影响的考量因素各异。以计量分析为主导方法的预测研究与法教义学研究并不冲突,后者为前者奠定基础,前者为后者提供论据和思路。
There has been a good deal of normative research on the discretionary reduction of liquidated damages,but little on result prediction derived from an econometric analysis model.Prediction research can solve the problems of the single judgment basis of the excessiveness of liquidated damages in current law and of the lack of a unified standard in judicial practice.Structured interviews with some judges have allowed us to clarify the rules of sample selection and variable setting before undertaking the prediction study.Taking as a sample the relevant judgments released by China Judgments Online,we conducted a quantitative analysis which showed that it is indeed reasonable to take 30 percent higher than the actual loss as the standard for judging the excessiveness of liquidated damages.However,it is also necessary to increase two more standards,i.e.,20 per cent of the contract amount and the degree of contract performance.On the question of whether reduction of the liquidated damages should be discretionary or total,the greater the subjective malice of the defaulting party or the greater the consideration given to the industry’s transaction customs and objective circumstances,the less chance there is of reducing liquidated damages and of totally reducing the liquidated damages on account of actual loss,and also the less chance of subtracting the total liquidated damages in consideration of the actual loss.Among factors to be taken into account,the ratio of the agreed penalty to the total contract price and the expected benefits has a significant impact on the discretionary reduction of liquidated damages,while with regard to the different nature and types of contract,the different considerations affecting liquidated damages have a significant impact upon the result of discretionary reduction.There is no conflict between prediction research in which quantitative analysis is the guiding method and the study of legal dogmatism;the latter lays the foundation for the former,while the former provides arguments and ideas for the latter.
出处
《中国社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第5期108-134,206,207,共29页
Social Sciences in China
基金
国家社会科学基金重大项目“自然资源权利配置研究”(15ZDB176)阶段性成果。
