论违约金之减额——从“实益”到“原理”

On the Deduction of Liquidated Damages——Shifting from Beneficial Interest to Principle

《合同法》第114条第2款为法院降低当事人约定的违约金数额打开了"方便之门",其正当性来自于实现当事人利益客观均衡的"实益型"思考。罗马法以来,违约金减额规范的变化呈现出实质化的进路,但却偏离了合同法理论的整体框架。为保持合同逻辑体系的协调,应当从"合同自由"的基本原理出发,重视缔约过程体现的当事人合意强度,以合意拘束力的界限作为认定违约金约定数额是否有效的根本依据。立法论上,违约金减额规范未必是必要的;解释论上,《合同法》第114条第2款应被视为"便宜"的表达。

Article 114 （2） of the PRC Contract Law and the related judicial interpretations give thejudges power to reduce the liquidated damages stipulated by the parties, its legitimacy comes from the beneficialinterests of realizing the objective balance of the interests of the parties. Since the Roman law, thestandard of the change in liquidated damages deduction has shown a substantial approach with deviatingfrom the whole framework of the contract law theory. In order to keep the coordination of contract logic system, we should proceed from the basic principle of freedom of contract, value the intensity of the parties inthe process of contracting, and take the limits of consensual binding force as the fundamental basis for determiningwhether the amount of liquidated damages is valid or not. In legislation theory, it is not essentiallynecessary to regulate the amount of liquidated damages, while in explanation theory, Article 114 （2） of thecontract law should be interpreted as a convenient provision.