论文部分内容阅读
随着社会的发展,现实生活中出现了许多涉及侵犯当事人非财产权益的违约案件。在这些案件中,如果还坚持违约责任与侵权责任在非财产损害问题上的二元划分,就违背了民事赔偿原则中的完全赔偿原则。我国现行的法律制度还没有关于违约非财产损害赔偿的明文规定,各法院对法律的理解也不尽相同,因此,在司法实践中不同的法院对同一案件往往会做出不同的判决。大陆法系和英美法系的代表国家都已从理论或判例上确立了违约非财产损害赔偿制度,这些都值得我国法学界加以借鉴,从而使得我国合同立法体系中的损害赔偿制度更加完善。
With the development of society, there are many cases of default in real life involving infringement of parties’ non-property rights and interests. In these cases, the principle of complete compensation in the principle of civil compensation is also violated if we insist on the dual division of responsibility for breach of contract and tort liability on the issue of non-property damage. The current legal system in our country does not contain express provisions on the default compensation for non-property damages, and the courts have different understandings of the law. Therefore, courts in different jurisdictions often make different judgments on the same case. Both the civil law system and the representative countries of Anglo-American law system have established the system of non-property damage compensation for breach of contract from theory or jurisprudence, which are all worth our jurisprudence to draw lessons from, so that the system of damages in our country’s contract legislation system is more perfect.