论作为违约救济的获利交出

On Disgorgement for Breach of Contract

为预防与阻却违约获利行为,获利交出救济在理论上应运而生。不过,既有研究认为应适用获利交出救济的案型,均无需亦不应由此救济处理。一物二卖与节约履行的案型,由常规损害赔偿救济即可解决。对于守约方似无损失或损失难以计算的案型,则可由协商性损害赔偿处理。既有学说对获利交出救济的正当性依据、适用范围以及守约方保有得利之原因的论证都有缺陷。获利交出救济仅应适用于规则套利型违约。此类违约行为不仅损害交易稳定性,亦具有增加交易成本、减少交易的外部性而需予以预防。违约使用、履行欺诈、利用限制赔偿规则、实际履行排除规则、违约金调整规则牟利,均属于此类违约的典型情形。

In order to prevent breach of contract for profit, many scholars advocated the remedy of disgorgement. Existing studies believe that the case types that should be applied to the disgorgement do not need and should not be dealt with by this remedy. The case of one thing for two sales and skimped performance can be solved by conventional damage compensation. For cases in which the non-breaching party seems to suffer no loss or the loss is difficult to calculate, it can be handled by negotiating damages. Existing theories cannot justify disgorgement remedy. Disgorgement shall only apply to rule arbitrage breach. Such breach of contract not only damages transaction stability, but also increases transaction costs and reduces transaction externalities, which need to be prevented. Unauthorized use, fraud in performance, the use of limited compensation rules, specific performance exclusion rules and liquidated damage adjustment rules for profit are typical cases of such breach.