违约损害赔偿制度的比较法研究  

The Comparison of Damage Systems for Breach of a Contract

作　　者：李良才[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]湖南师范大学法学院,湖南长沙410087 [2]广东海洋大学法学院,广东湛江524025

出　　处：《湖南财经高等专科学校学报》2009年第3期9-12,共4页Journal of Hunan Financial and Economic College

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学项目"WTO贸易救济权研究"(项目编号:07JA820034)阶段成果之一

摘　　要：英美普通法和大陆民法法系在违约救济措施上存在较大的差异。英美法院选择判决损害赔偿,充分发挥金钱的弥补作用;而大陆法系国家更多地是判令违约方实际履行。在司法实践中对违约损害赔偿的归类上,英美法系和大陆法系采纳的标准不同,但基本上可以划分为实际损害和期待利益的丧失两类。在对违约损害赔偿的目的、违约损害赔偿适用的限制上,两大法系在立法及司法上表现出极大的趋同倾向。As for the measures for breach of a contract, Anglo - U. S. A common law and continental civil law have dealt with it in quite different ways. The courts of England and U. S. A choose to pay damages to the victim in order to make the best use of money. But continental countries usually require that the contract in question actually perform. In judicial practice, those two legal systems have adopted quite different standards for classification. So they may be classified into two basic kinds： real losses and future interest losses. As to the purposes of breach damages and restrictions thereon, there are great similarities in these two systems beth in legislative and adjudicative practices.

关 键 词：违约 损害赔偿 比较法 趋同化 

分 类 号：D923.9[政治法律—民商法学] D923.6[政治法律—法学]