Translated Titles

The Rule of Mitigation in Contract Law





Key Words

減損規則 ; 合理性評價標準 ; 預期違約 ; 原定給付之履行 ; 過失相抵 ; 社會經濟效益 ; 誠實信用原則 ; the rule of mitigation ; reasonableness standard ; anticipatory repudiation ; specific performance ; contributory negligence ; social economic benefits ; the good faith principle



Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication


Academic Degree Category




Content Language


Chinese 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。

English Abstract

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.

Topic Category 法律學院 > 法律學研究所
社會科學 > 法律學
  1. 2. G.H.Treitel, The Low of Contract (Eleventh Edition), Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, (2003).
  2. 4. Prof. Williston, Williston on Contracts, Vol.3.
  3. 5. Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contract, Vol III.
  4. 1. Joseph H. Beale, Jr., Damages upon Repudiation of a Contract, The Yale Law Review, Vol. 17, (1908).
  5. 2. P. M. Nienaber, The Effect of Anticipatory Repudiation: Principle and Policy, The Cambridge Law Journal, (1962).
  6. 3. Blain. J, Yetton v. Eastwoods Froy Ltd., Managerial Law, Vol. 1 lss 4, (1967).
  7. 4. Charlesn J. Goetz & Robert E. Scott, The Mitigation Principle: Toward a general theory of contractual obligation, Virginia Law Reviw Vol. 69, (1983).
  8. 5. J. W. Carter & Geoffrey Marston, Repudiation of Contract- Whether election fettered, The Cambridge Law Review, (1985).
  9. 6. Dena DeNooyer, Remedying Anticipatory Repudiation-Past, Present and Future, SMU Law Review Vol. 52, (1999).
  10. 8. Mark P. Gergen, The law’s response to exit and loyalty in contract disputes, Comparative remedies for breach of contract, Edited by Nili Cohen & Ewan McKendrick, Oxford, (2005).
  11. 9. Solene Le Pautremat, Mitigation of Damage: A French Perspective, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol 55 January, (2006).
  12. 12. Saul Levmore, Stipulated damages, Super-strict liability, and Mitigation in Contract Law, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 107, (2009).
  13. 13. L. Vold, Anticipatory Repudiation of contracts and necessity of election, Michigen Law Review.
  14. 14. Henry Winthrop Ballantine, Anticipatory Breach and the Enforcement of Contractual Duties, Michigen Law Review.
  15. 6. Weir v. Dobell (1916) 1 KB 722
  16. 14. Pilkington v. Wood (1953) Ch 770
  17. 17. Yetton v. Eastwoods Froy (1967) 1 WLR 104(QB)
  18. 25. Costello v. City of Calgary (1995) 163 AR 241
  19. 一、中文參考書目
  20. 1、史尚寬(2000),《債法總論》,2000年1月1版,北京:中國政法大學出版社。
  21. 2、王利明(2000),《違約責任論》,2000年2月版,北京:中國政法大學出版社。
  22. 3、曾世雄(2001),《損害賠償法原理》,2001年10月1版,北京:中國政法大學出版社。
  23. 4、卡爾.拉倫茨(2003),《德國民法通論》,王曉曄、邵建東、程建英、徐國建譯,2003年,北京:法律出版社。
  24. 5、鄭玉波(2004),《民法債編總論》,2004年3月修訂2版,北京:中國政法大學出版社。
  25. 6、陳衛佐譯註(2006),《德國民法典》第二版,2006年1月,北京:法律出版社。
  26. 7、楊楨(2007),《英美契約法論》,2007年12月第四版,北京:北京大學出版社。
  27. 8、韓世遠(2011),《合同法總論》,2011年8月第3版,北京:法律出版社。
  28. 9、楊良宜(2013),《損害賠償與救濟》,2013年3月版,北京:法律出版社。
  29. 二、中文期刊論文
  30. 1、楊立新(1994),<論損益相抵>,中國法學,1994年第3期。
  31. 2、韓世遠(1997),<減損規則論>,法學研究,1997年第1期。
  32. 3、王澤鑒(2003),<第三人與有過失>,《民法學說與判例研究一》2003年9月1版,頁88,北京:中國政法大學出版社
  33. 4、崔建遠(2003),<民法移植制度的背景因素和內在和諧問題>,《法學家》2003年第4期。
  34. 5、王海(2003),<減損原則在國際貨物買賣合同中的適用>,西南政法大學碩士學位論文。
  35. 6、馬荔(2004),<論違約損害賠償中的減輕損害規則>,對外經貿大學碩士論文。
  36. 7、王燕霞(2006),<減損規則與債權人行使繼續履行救濟權的衝突及協調>,中國政法大學碩士學位論文。
  37. 8、陳聰富(2008),<過失相抵之法理基礎及其適用範圍>,《中德私法研究》,總第四卷。
  38. 9、吳亞玲(2008),<違約損害賠償減損規則研究>,復旦大學碩士學位論文。
  39. 10、劉冰(2008),<論合同違約中的減損規則>,華東政法大學碩士論文。
  40. 11、渠濤等譯(2010),<日本民法(債權法)修改草案條文>,《中日民商法研究》第九卷,2010年9月,北京:法律出版社。
  41. 12、韓世遠(2011),<中國合同法與CISG>,暨南學報,2011年第2期。
  42. 13、熊海秀(2012),<對合同違約中減損規則的思考>,法制與社會,2012年3月下。
  43. 三、中國判例
  44. 1、Panzhihua Dongqu Shunda Constructuon Co. v. Panzhihua Huilin Real Estate Development Co.(2005)船民終字第144號。
  45. 2、黃紹倫訴皇家馬車家具有限公司案(2007)佛中法民五終字第10號。
  46. 3、青海省大柴旦大華化工有限公司訴江蘇綠陵潤發化工有限公司買賣合同糾紛(2009)民二終字第91號。
  47. 4、甘肅雪晶進出口有限公司訴河南中色東方韶星實業有限公司買賣合同糾紛案 (2012)民申字第1384號。
  48. 四、外文參考書目
  49. 1. L. S. Sealy, Cases and Materials in Company Law, Cambridge University Press, (1971).
  50. 3. Bryan A. Garner (Editor in Chief), Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Editon), Thomson Reuters, (2009).
  51. 6. Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kotz, Introduction to Comparative Law.
  52. 五、外文期刊論文
  53. 7. Keith A. Rowley, A Brief History of Anticipatory Repudiation in American Contract Law, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol.69, (2001).
  54. 10. Barak Richman, Jordi Weinstock and Jason Mehta, A Bridge, A Tax Revolt, and the Struggle to Industrialize: The story and legacy of Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co., North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 84, (2006).
  55. 11. Wei Fan, Mitigation Rule and Efficient Breach - a Comparision between Chinese law and English law, Bracton Law Journal, Volume 39, (2007).
  56. 15. Andrew Leung, Keeping Repudiated Contract Alive, http://www.stonechambers.com/download-documents/keeping-repudiated-contracts-alive--aquafaith----andrew-leung.pdf (2014-12-15)
  57. 六、外國判例
  58. 1. Vertue v. Bird, 3 Keble 766, 84 Eng. Rep. 1000 (1677)
  59. 2. Clark v. Marsiglia 1 Denio (N.Y.) 317, 43Am. Dec. 670 (1845)
  60. 3. Dunkirk Colliery Co. v. Lever (1878) 9 Ch. D. 20, C. A.
  61. 4. Brace v. Calder (1895)2 Q. B. 253
  62. 5. British Westinghouse Co. v. Underground (1912) A. C. 637
  63. 7. Payzu Ltd v. Saunders (1919) 2 K.B. 581
  64. 8. Elliott Steam Tug Co. v. Shipping Controller (1922) 1 KB 127
  65. 9.Finlay v. Kwik Hoo Tong (1929) 32 Lloyd’s Rep. 245
  66. 10. Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. 35 F 2d 301 (4th Cir 1929)
  67. 11. O’Hare v. Peacock Dairies Inc 26 Cal App 2d 345, 79P 2d 433 (1938)
  68. 12. Lesters Leather & Skin Co. Ltd v. Home & Overseas Buyers Brokers, Ltd (1948) 64 TLR 569
  69. 13. Bomberger v. McKelvey 35 Cal 2d 607, 220 P 2d 729 (1950)
  70. 15. Heaven & Kesterton Ltd v. Establishment Francois Albias & Cie (1956) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 316 (QB)
  71. 16. White and Carter (Councils) Ltd. v. McGregor (1962) A. C. 413
  72. 18. Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. 3 Cal. 3d 176, 89 Cal. Rptr. 737, 474 P. 2d 689 (1970)
  73. 19. The Puerto Buitrago (1976) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 250
  74. 20. The “Lily Prima” (1976) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 487
  75. 21. The Odenfeld (1978) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 357
  76. 22. Sotiros Shipping Inc v. Sameiet Solholt (The Solholt) (1983) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 605
  77. 23. The Alaskan Tader (No.2) (1983) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 645
  78. 24. Gebruder Metelmann GmbH v. NBR(London) Ltd. (1984) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 614
  79. 26. Western Trust & Saving Ltd v. Travers &Co (1997) PNLR 295, CA, 574
  80. 27. The Dynamic (2003) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 693
  81. 28. The Aquafaith (2012) EWHC 1077