契約法下減輕損害規則之研究

Abstract

減輕損害規則（The Rule of Mitigation）係一項以社會經濟效益理論為設立基礎的典型英美法系制度，其核心內容為違約或侵權之受害方在違約或侵權發生後應當採取合理行為避免或減輕損害結果，否則將可能遭受請求損害賠償範圍受限之不利後果。減損規則雖然對受害方施以一定程度之減損義務，但其設置之根本目的在於引導受害方積極為自救，向增加社會整體資源之方向行事，從而利於當事人、社會三方之經濟效益。 從國際視野觀之，於契約法領域減損規則雖然係一項英美法制度，但由於其在促進當事人與社會整體經濟效益方面之作用，許多國際公約甚至是部分大陸法系國家亦對該制度有所採納，譬如中國合同法在第一百一十九條明文規定了減損規則。然不可否認，將一項典型之英美法制度移植進入大陸法系環境必然會出現兼容之問題，即應當如何將由系列判例發展而來的減損規則之內容以成文法之形式全面、精確地固定下來，以及減損規則與大陸法系內部現有相關制度之使用衝突應作如何協調。 針對上述制度移植中呈現之問題，本文擬通過對英美法中相關判例之分析整合，總結出較為完整、準確的減損規則基本內容與具體適用方式，以及英美法在處理制度衝突過程中形成之理論經驗，為中國法在引入減損規則後應作何種完善、當如何具體適用該制度以及協調制度間衝突提供借鑒。 本文共分為六章。第一章提出以契約法下之減損規則作為研究主題之動機與研究方法。第二章主要從減損規則之起源、基本內容、設立基礎等方面介紹其相關理論。第三章通過援引分析英美法之相關判例提出以具體合理人為核心，成本、利益、商業信譽、外部市場等具體因素為輔之減損規則合理性評價標準，用以認定受害方面對違約時之行為是否符合減損規則之要求。同時，還就英美法對減損規則是否得介入預期違約情形之不同觀點加以闡述與分析。第四章主要從四方面對中國合同法下減損規則之具體適用進行論述：首先確認中國法確有引入減損規則之必要，且應在現有規定之基礎上完整採納減損規則之理念與內容；其次，經由對中國學者觀點與司法實務之分析，認定在解釋合同法第一百一十九條所謂之適當措施時應承繼英美法所形成之合理性評價標準的內容；再者，在處理減損規則與預期違約制度之矛盾時，考慮到預期違約制度之設立目的以及中國法重視誠信與契約約束力之傳統，應當有限制地允許減損規則介入預期違約情形；最後，針對減損規則與原定給付之履行間的衝突，認為減損規則或可作為受害方行使選擇違約救濟方式權利的一項限制機制。本文第五章主要闡述了台灣法引入減損規則之必要性，並提出具體操作之建議。第六章係結論，對全文內容予以歸納總結。

As a typical rule of Common law, the rule of mitigation founded on the theory of social economic benefit. The rule of mitigation requires a plaintiff, after an injury or breach of contract, to make reasonable efforts to alleviate the effects of the injury or breach. If the defendant can show that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, the plaintiff’s recovery may be reduced. Although the rule has set the duty to mitigate on the part of plaintiff, the fundamental purpose of this rule is to encourage the plaintiff to conduct self- rescue, and in consistent with promoting the economic benefits and reducing property waste. From the international perspective, the rule of mitigation has been adopted by several international conventions, and even some of the Civil law countries has stipulated the rule of mitigation, such as the Article 119 of the Contract Law of PRC. However, during the transplantation of mitigation into Civil law system several problems have arisen. Firstly, how to settle the content of mitigation in the form of statute law comprehensively and accurately. Secondly, how to deal with the conflict between the rule of mitigation and the traditional principles in Civil law. In order to solve questions above- mentioned, this thesis try to analyse a series of cases in Common law and summarise the comprehensive rules of English and American judicial practice in the use of Mitigation, and also the experience in dealing with the conflict between Mitigation and the anticipatory repudiation. This thesis comprises six chapters. The first chapter briefly introduce the research motivation and method. In the second chapter, author focuses on the origin, the main content and the theory basis of the rule of mitigation. As has mentioned above, the theory basis of Mitigation is the theory of social economic benefits and also the principle of good faith. The third chapter illustrates the meaning of reasonable steps in Common law system and accordingly sets up a standard named “reasonable person standard”, which takes the plaintiff’s personal experience, capacity into account when considering whether the conduct of plaintiff after the breach is reasonable. Furthermore, the other objective factors, including costs, legal rights and benefits, market factors and the character of contract, should also be taken into consideration. This chapter also introduce the two different ways of England and America in dealing with the conflict between Mitigation and the anticipatory repudiation, namely the theory of “substantial and legitimate interest” and “uncompensated loss”. The fourth chapter firstly states the necessity of transplanting the rule of mitigation into Chinese civil law system and the improvement of Article. 119. Then pointing out that the phrase of “reasonable conducts” under Article 119 can also be interpreted by the “reasonable person standard”. Under the Chinese contract law, the use of Mitigation should be permitted under the circumstance of anticipatory repudiation with a certain extent of restriction. The last part of this chapter states that the rule of mitigation may be used to limit the election of specific performance, and even the whole remedies for breach by the plaintiff. In the fifth chapter, the author illustrates the necessity to adopt the rule of mitigation into Taiwanese civil law system and also how to adjust the applying boundary of this rule in order to protect the spirit of good faith and the right to select specific performance from the erosion of Mitigation. The last chapter of this thesis is the conclusion.