可预见性规则之重释

Reinterpretation of the Foreseeability Rule

植根于“经验的合意”的传统观点并不能对可预见性规则的正当性做出充分合理的说明。民法典语境中,合同制度的意义在于当事人之间以某种制度性、规律性的认识为前提做出自我约束,从而形成当事人之间的“规范合意”。以此为基础,应将预见的对象界定为“情形”而非“损害”;预见的时点为“违约时”而非“缔约时”;预见的主体为“当事人”而非“债务人”;并否定“故意违约例外”的必要性。此外,以“因果关系”来统一限制损害赔偿范围的规范模式系以损害赔偿的“一元论”为前提;而我国民法典不设债法总则的做法表明了损害赔偿“二元论”的立场。

Traditionally,the legitimacy of foreseeability rule is based on the empirical consent of the parties.But the traditional theory can't validate the paradox between the objective judgment of value and the empirical consent.The meaning of the contract law is to give the parties the right to restrain themselves based on their self-discipline.The contract should be regarded as the normative consent of the contracting parties.Therefore,the object of the foreseeability rule should be the“situation”,and the foreseeability of the concrete damage should be excluded.And the timing of the foreseeability rule should be identified as the time when the nonperformance was made.The subject of the foreseeability should be the parties.In the meantime,the exceptional rule of the deliberate default is unnecessary.And it is based on the monism theory of the default and tort that limit the scope of damages by the rule of causality.It's unnecessary to establish any common provision about the scope of damages in the Chinese civil code.