我国违约金司法酌减限制论.pdfVIP

摘 要 违约金因其固有的损害赔偿及担保合同履行方面的优势，被广泛应用于合同中。 然而，由于违约金司法酌减规则的混乱、违约金司法酌减指导思想错误，再加上法 官释明权的过度适用，导致了违约金在司法实务中被过度地酌减，使得其应有功能 属性难以得到发挥，且与合同自由、合同正义相悖。另外司法酌减中对具体的违约 金种类之判断，实则是合同解释问题，应遵从当事人意思自治。违约金酌减应区分 惩罚性违约金与赔偿性违约金，其中，赔偿性违约金应从损害赔偿预设的角度出发， 酌情减少；而惩罚性违约金应从督促债务人履约的角度出发，以显示公平者为限。 再者，明确违约金司法酌减的指导思想：应以不酌减为原则，以酌减为例外，并且 法官在酌减中应审慎行使释明权。 关键词：违约金；司法酌减；释明权 I 万方数据 Abstract The Liquidated damage is being widely used in various contract texts, is the result of the strength of its inherent functional attributes of damages to the default and guarantee performance. However, because of chaos of the rules about discretionary judicial reduction of the liquidated damages, improper guiding ideology of discretionary judicial reduction of the liquidated damages, coupled with the excessive application of the power of interpretation by the judges, leading to the result that the discretionary reduction of the liquidated damage is in large probability. What’s more, it is inconsistent with contract freedom and contract justice. In addition, the judgment of the liquidated damages in discretionary judicial reduction of the liquidated damages, which is contract interpretation substantially, should follow the autonomy of the parties. It is distinguished between the punitive damages and compensation of liquidated damages about discretionary reduction