契約責任中一般性精神痛苦之慰撫金——以心理健康法益為解釋途徑

Abstract

於我國現行法下，被害人如遭受非財產損害，其原則上並無法請求金錢賠償，除非存在「容許慰撫金請求」之例外規定，不論於侵權責任或契約責任下均為如此。其中，適用最為廣泛之例外規定即為「侵害人格法益之慰撫金」。

而為擴大人格法益之保護範圍，我國實務上不乏有在「具體案例類型中所承認之人格法益」。但本文認為，此種「有條件承認人格法益」之作法不論在法益內涵之解釋上或是與現行法體系之對應上，均有不完善之處，而應考慮是否以一般性之觀點，承認「一般性之精神上痛苦」即為一種人格法益之侵害。此外，契約責任之特性於慰撫金制度中扮演了何種角色，亦為本文所關注之另一重點。

首先，本文認為在契約責任中，當事人應可約定「意定慰撫金」，蓋民法第18條第2項限制慰撫金之一般原則應為任意規定。此外，當事人亦可以「損害賠償預定性違約金」之方式直接約定慰撫金數額，法院並不應主張該數額過高而酌減，以尊重當事人之風險分配。此為契約責任之特性首先能展現之處。

再者，在法定慰撫金之解釋適用上，本文參考了德國法之見解，認為應可承認一般性之精神痛苦為「心理健康法益」之侵害，並將保護範圍限於「法律上認為重要」之精神上痛苦，而非以較嚴格之醫學上標準認定之。至於契約責任之特性，本文則參考英格蘭法重視「契約目的」之精神，認為其可於我國契約法之因果關係要件下，透過「契約當事人可預見性」之考量加以體現。

Under current Taiwanese law, victims generally cannot claim damages for non-pecuniary losses unless a statutory exception explicitly allows for such damages. This limitation applies equally in both tort and contract law. Among all the exceptions, the most widely applied one is the damages for infringement of personality rights.

In practice, Taiwanese courts have expanded the scope of protection for personality rights by recognizing some specific types of personality rights on a case-by-case basis. However, this interpretation is both conceptually and doctrinally inadequate. Instead, a recognition of “general mental distress” as the infringement of personality right appears to be more preferable. Furthermore, the distinct features of contractual liability are also overlooked in the current interpretation of the practice.

First, this article approves the permissibility of contractual clauses for damages regarding non-pecuniary losses, since the restriction set out in Taiwanese Civil Code should be treated as non-mandatory. In addition, parties may stipulate a specific number of liquidated damages, which should be respected by the courts in order to uphold the risk allocation of the parties.

Moreover, in analyzing statutory damages for non-pecuniary losses, this article draws upon German law to support the idea that general mental distress is also protected by the right to mental health, insofar as it is legally significant. Finally, with reference to English contract law, this article highlights the importance of the object of contract in determining the recoverability of mental distress, which can be incorporated into Taiwanese law through the doctrine of foreseeability.