论文部分内容阅读
文章以天津某涉及违约金调整的问题为论证切入点,分析此案的处理存有四点缺陷:调整的原因存疑、与违约金制度的功能和性质不符、法律依据不明确以及与违约金的原则相违。基于对案件的重新认识和分析,提出此类案件的裁判思路应当为:在实体问题上,以损失问题的认定为核心,以损失的数额与违约金的数额进行对比,严格按照《合同法》第一百一十四条的规定决定是否进行调整;在诉讼问题上,应合理地分配有关损失问题的举证责任,并且在认定原告经营能力的问题上,灵活适用《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第九十三条关于免证的条款。
This article takes Tianjin as an example to discuss the adjustment of the liquidated damages. There are four defects in the handling of the case: the reasons for the adjustment are not in accordance with the functions and nature of the liquidated damages system, the legal basis is not clear, and the liquidated damages The principle is contrary. Based on the re-understanding and analysis of the case, the idea of refereeing such a case should be as follows: On the substantive issue, taking the determination of loss as the core, comparing the amount of loss with the amount of liquidated damages, strictly in accordance with the “Contract Law” The provisions of Article 114 decide whether to make adjustments; on the issue of litigation, the burden of proof on the issue of losses should be rationally allocated, and on the determination of the plaintiff’s operational ability, the Supreme People’s Court shall apply flexibly “ People’s Republic of China Civil Procedure Law> ”Article 93 of the provisions of the exemption.