违约救济范文（精选3篇）
违约救济 第1篇
(一) 执行和解中的预期违约不具有可诉性
对于执行和解协议是否具有可诉性, 不同的学者有不同的见解, 理论界和实务界对此也进行了诸多的探讨。从目前我国的司法实践来说, 和解协议的可诉性已经在最高人民法院出具的个案答复中得到了确认, 但是, 并不是所有的和解协议都是可诉的, 它具有严格的范围限制。明确具有可诉性的和解协议仅限于特定情形, 如在超过了申请执行期限达成还款协议、因为进行还款协议协商而超过了申请执行期限等情形。在新《民事诉讼法》的修改中, 加强和解协议的可诉性并不是民诉法发展的方向。从目前实践中的情况来看, 重新起诉只是在不能得到民事诉讼法规定的强制执行途径的有效救济的情况下, 当事人可以选择的补充做法。而新《民事诉讼法》对不履行和解协议情况下当事人的救济做了具体而明确的规定, 因此, 重新起诉不能作为这种情况下当事人的救济方法。
(二) 申请恢复对原生效法律文书的执行是对执行和解中预期违约的法定救济途径
新《民事诉讼法》第230条第二款中明确规定, 当事人不履行和解协议的, 人民法院可以根据当事人的申请, 恢复对原生效法律文书的执行。这是以国家基本法律的形式确定了在不履行和解协议 (包括预期违约) 的情况下对当事人提供的救济, 这里的当事人, 一般是指申请执行人。在进行执行和解协议的磋商过程中, 申请执行人为了快速回笼资金或者在可能的范围内尽快获得清偿, 往往会放弃一部分债权, 即对自己的权利进行一部分处理, 从而与被执行人达成一致意见, 形成一个具体的和解协议。因此, 有学者将和解协议看做是一个附条件生效合同, 合同的具体内容就是和解协议中约定的还款内容, 而所附的条件就是被执行人必须按照和解协议的约定履行义务, 如果被执行不履行义务, 则条件不成立, 合同也就此失效, 为了订立附条件合同所作出的让步必然也就没有效力。在一方不履行或者不适当履行执行和解协议这种“附条件生效”的特殊合同时, 申请执行人申请恢复执行的是原生效判决, 和解协议本身不具有强制执行效力。
(三) 对明示的预期违约和默示的预期违约区别对待
由于明示的预期违约中, 义务人已经明确的表示自己不会履行和解协议中约定的内容, 所以从义务人不履行和解协议的意思表示到达申请执行人起, 申请执行人就可以向人民法院申请恢复执行原生效的法律文书了。但是前面提过, 在执行和解协议的执行过程中, 明示的预期违约的意思表示可以撤回, 因此很可能在申请执行人申请恢复执行原生效的法律文书后, 被执行人认为自己逃债无望, 或者认为恢复执行原文书自己将给付更多, 还不如按照和解协议的内容履行义务合算, 从而重新表示愿意按和解协议执行。在这种情况下, 如果被执行人撤回意思表示时还没有到执行和解协议约定的履行义务期限, 法院应当允许。如果被执行人撤回意思表示时已经超过了执行和解协议约定的履行义务期限, 那么该当事人的预期违约已经转化为实际违约, 申请执行人已经有法定的申请恢复执行权。此时, 被执行人希望按照原执行和解协议执行的意思表示就成为了新的执行案件中执行和解协议的要约, 原和解协议已经失效。
在默示的预期违约中, 申请执行人必须提供足够的证据证明义务人已经通过行为表示不再履行和解协议, 人民法院应当对这些证据进行审查, 并在重新立案执行原生效法律文书前向被执行人发出履行通知。如果被执行人提供相应的担保, 人民法院可以暂缓恢复执行。如果有证据证明被执行人不再履行和解协议, 被执行人又没有提供相应的担保, 人民法院应当及时立案恢复执行, 无需等到和解协议约定的履行期限届满。
(四) 因预期违约恢复原法律文书执行后, 当事人可否重新达成和解协议的疑问
从私法角度来说, 当事人自由协商达成和解协议、处分自己的权利是当事人的自由, 法院无权干涉。但是因预期违约恢复原法律文书执行后, 当事人可否重新达成和解协议, 就不能单从当事人处理自身私权利的角度看了。因为因预期违约恢复原法律文书执行, 说明被执行人或者义务人就是为了拖延履行而进行的恶意磋商, 如果继续赋予被执行人和解的机会, 可能使他如法炮制、重新陷入和解到恢复执行的恶性循环中。这就使因预期违约恢复原法律文书执行后的和解协议制度设计陷入了一个两难境地:如果当事人继续和解, 很可能损害申请执行人权利, 也极大的浪费司法资源;如果剥夺当事人的和解权利, 就会产生公权力过分干预私权利的结果。在这个问题上, 笔者有三个制度设想。方案一:因预期违约恢复原法律文书执行后, 禁止当事人重新达成和解协议, 按原生效法律文书执行;方案二:因预期违约恢复原法律文书执行后, 当事人可以无限制的达成和解协议;方案三:因预期违约恢复原法律文书执行后, 当事人可以重新达成一次和解协议, 但是如果第二次和解协议仍不能履行, 当事人不能再申请恢复执行原生效法律文书, 而只能按照新和解协议的内容强制执行。相比较而言, 方案一过于干预私权利, 方案二过于浪费司法资源, 方案三相对在私权利和公权力之间找到了平衡, 因此笔者更倾向于这一方案。对于这个问题到底如何解决, 还需要国家以立法或者司法解释的形式早日加以规制。
参考文献
[1]董少谋.民事强制执行法学[M], 法律出版社 (2011) .
违约救济 第2篇
国际货物买卖是指具有国际性因素的以支付价金的方式换取货物所有权的交易行为，而国际货物买卖合同则是指营业地处于不同国家的当事人缔结的合同，是当事人之间的一种协议。由于现实世界的纷繁复杂，不履行合同的情况实属常见，除了与当事人无关的事实导致的不履行合同之外，更多的是当事人一方的违约行为造成合同的不被履行。为了保证国际货物买卖合同的顺利履行和合同目的的实现，合同中所涉及的双方权利义务通常是具体而详尽的，其中最为基本的是卖方获取货物价款的权利和交付货物的义务以及买方获取货物的权利和支付货款的义务。
若在国际货物买卖中，订立合同的当事人没有按照合同的规定履行其合同义务则视为是违约。对于除了因不可抗力或情势变更或合同落空等原因造成的不履行合同的行为，行为人应当承担相应的法律责任，即违约责任。要求违约方承担违约责任的权利即是法律赋予守约方的一种对利益损失的救济，目的是保护受害方的权益，使其尽量避免或者减少违约造成的损失。在国际货物买卖中，卖方的违约行为主要表现在：不交货、延迟交货、货物（品质、数量等）不符、货物上存有第三方权利或要求、提交的单证有瑕疵等。《公约》作为专门调整国际货物买卖合同双方权利义务关系的规范性文件，对于买卖双方在一方违约时另一方实施救济的权利和途径在一般性规定的基础上又分别做了具体的安排。鉴于卖方违约的主要形式有不交货、延迟交货或所交的货物与合同不符，买方除了可以采用买卖双方均可使用的救济方法外，还可以有针对性地采取以下相应的救济措施：
1）要求卖方交付替代货物：若卖方所交付的货物与合同规定不符，而且这种不符合合同的情况已构成根本违反合同，买方有权要求卖方另外再上交一批符合合同要求的货物，以替代原来不符合合同的货物；
2）要求对货物不符之处进行修补：即买方对于卖方所交付的与合同不符的货物，在不服的情形不很严重的情况下，要求卖方进行修补的救济权利；
3）购买替代货物：如果买卖合同被宣告无效，在宣告无效后的一段合理时间内，买方以合理的方式购买替代物，则有权要求卖方赔偿合同价格与替代货物价格之间的差额。这实际上承认了买方在卖方根本违约时有权解除合同并通过购买替代货物使自己的合同目的得以实现的救济方式；
4）卖方应对不履行义务做出补救：根据《公约》第48条的规定，卖方即使在交货日期之后，仍可自负费用，对任何不履行义务做出补救。从某种意义上说，这不是买方主动采取的救济措施，但它最终起到了对双方订立合同的预期利益的维护效用，因此对于买方来说也是一种对利益损害的救济；
5）要求减价：《公约》第50条规定，如果卖方所交付的货物与合同不符，且这种不符是买方愿意容忍的，不论买方是否已支付货款，买方都可以要求降低价格，减价按实际交付的货物在交货时的价值与符合合同的货物在当时的价值两者之间的比例计算；
对于“要求减价”的这个救济措施是实际操作当中最常用到的，且看一案例：台湾某出口商与斯里兰卡某进口商在签订的货物买卖合同中约定以CIF Colambo价格条件销售丝绸，合同价款共计514.50美元。但在产品接受出口检验时被发现其中混有不合格产品，约占货物全部39.4%，且卖方未予清理。因卖方在合同与信用证上均未标明在货物中混有不合格产品的比例，故当买方发现货物存在瑕疵后拒绝支付货款，并要求卖方减价赔偿损失。在这个案例中，买方认为卖方虽在产品出口检验时发现大量不合格产品，但未作任何清理即装船出口，且合同中未约定允许货物中混有不合格产品，致使卖方交货品质与合同不符，构成违约的卖方应承担相应法律责任。但是如果按照正常的渠道去申请索赔，必然费时费力，所以减少价金的救济方法值得提倡。通过该种方式不仅补偿了买方因卖方违约遭受之损失，同时，因卖方不必向本国主管机关申请准许赔偿的汇款手续，使今后的交易能够顺利进行，不受任何影响。通过该种救济方法，买方达到了与请求赔偿损失同样的索赔目标。
6）拒绝收取货物：《公约》规定如果卖方在规定的日期前交付货物，买方可以收取货物，也可以拒绝收取货物。如果卖方交付的货物数量大于合同规定的数量，买方可以收取也可以拒绝收取多交部分的货物。如果卖方收取多交部分货物的全部或一部分，他必须按合同价格付款。
违约救济 第3篇
While contracts are the very foundation of all civilized existence, breach of contract virtually haunts every corner of the world throughout human history despite the fact that any violation of a contract may deprive certain parties in a broken deal of the profits expected. That is where the remedies for breach came in, which is intended to protect the damaged parties and their expectation interest by requesting the performance of contract, claiming for monetary damages and so on. This paper is to present a sketch of what is expectation interest under the American contract law and its limitations, thus furnishing some reference which might come in handy where Chinese scholars want to study the US contract law in detail.
二、Expectation Interest
( 一 ) Definition Expectation interest refers to the extra interest which a non-fault party to a breached contract would have received had the contract been performed.
( 二 ) The Measurement of Expectation Interest
1.General PrinciplesItis note-worthy that if the default event occurs before the victim of contact violation tries to fulfill the contractual obligation on his part, the cost of the unnecessary execution of the contract on the non-fault part should be subtracted from the liquidated damages, which conforms to the principle of circumventing further or avoidable loss.
The specific ways of calculating expectation interest areexpatiated on as follows.
2. Cost of Completion When any project or contract is notcompleted on time, the further amount required to finish the task is called cost of completion.
A case in point is about an engineering construction contract. Abuilding contractor and the proprietor signed a housing construction contract worth $ 700, 000 (including the cost of materials) . The contractor is paid by the proprietor according to the construction progress. The contractor refused or was unable to continue the contract after he partially performed the contract and received $400, 000 for the project. At this point, if the owners hire other contractors to complete the work, it takes him another $ 400, 000. Thus the court decrees that the contractor, the defaulting party who failed to comply, pay the proprietor only $100, 000.
3 .Diminished Value The diminished value or the diminution in value is identified as the difference in value between the outcome of a fulfilled contract and that of an unexecuted contract.
In Jacob & the Youngs, Inc. V. Kent case, the contractor used galvanized iron pipes in the building process whose brand was a far cry from that of pipes provided in the contract but whose physical structure is absolutely consistent with that of pipes stipulated. Ifexpectation interest was calculated by quantifying the cost of completion, it should be inclusive of the cost of the removal of pipes already in the house and the re-installation fees of new pipes conforming to the contract in both their brand and physical structure. Evidently, this violates the principle of circumventing further or avoidable loss. According to Justice Cardozo in this case, if the performance of the contractor engendered structural defects which might put the innocent party, namely the proprietor, in jeopardy, the owner of the property should be entitled to the amount equal to the replacement cost or repair cost. Notwithstanding, in this case, the flaws in the pipes in the housing were not structural and the physical structure of the pipes used by the contractor was in consonant with the terms of the contract products. These facts could not support the the installation. Instead, the plaintiff got a token amount as damages which equaled the diminution in value, e.g. the difference in value between the housing after the contractor finished his job and the ideal housing with the pipes stipulated.
三、The Limitations of Expectation Interest
The relief system under the American Contract Law imposes certain limitations on the scope of the expectation interest, e.g. the foreseeability rule, the certainty rule and the avoidability rule.
( 一 ) The Foreseeability Rule
Generally speaking, the Foreseeability Rule consists of thefollowing points:
1.The default party is not liable for losses that are unforeseeable when the contract is sealed.
2.The foreseeability as to a contract only concerns the default party rather than both parties to a contract dispute.
3.Only the moment when the default party signs the contract is taken into consideration whether or not the breaching party can foresee the potential consequence of violating the contract.
4.Objective criteria are applied when evaluating the foreseeability on the wrongdoer’s part, which means both what an ordinary person is capable of foreseeing under the given circumstances as well as what the wrongdoer predicts indeed is taken into account.
( 二 ) The Certainty Rule
Calculation should be conducted with definite certainty. In cases of uncertainty, many jurisdictions have adopted that the breaching party should bear the undesirable consequences rather than the aggrieved party. The loss that cannot be proved with reasonable certainty should be excluded during the calculation.
( 三 ) The Avoidability Rule
A non-breaching party cannot claim for damages he could have reasonably avoided without undue risk, burden or humiliation.
For instance, in terms of a personal service contract, the employer can subtract from the damages the amounts that he can prove the employee could have actually earned or, with reasonable efforts, might have earned from other employment.
四、Reference Value for the Contract Law ofChina