浅探违约责任归责原则与相关问题
摘要
违约责任作为保障债权实现和债务履行的重要措施，是指当事人不履行合同债务时，所应承担的赔偿损害、支付违约金等责任。我国《民法通则》在第六章“民事责任”中包含了两种责任形式，即违约责任和侵权责任。可见，违约责任不仅是合同法中一项最重要的制度，而且也是我国民事责任的重要组成部分。
民事责任的认定，必须遵循一定的归责原则。违约责任中的归责，是指基于一定的归责事由而确定违约责任成立的法律原则。这种法律原则，又必须依附于人们对因违约行为所导致的事实后果应否由违反合同的债务人承担的判断过程，因此标准的确定就显得极其重要了。
学术界就侵权责任的归责原则曾展开过激烈的讨论，但在违约责任归责原则方面，则探讨不够深入。归责原则在违约责任制度中有着重要的作用，它决定着违约责任的构成要件，决定着举证责任的内容，继而决定着赔偿责任的范围和违约责任的承担方式。因此，从整个合同法的角度看，归责原则对于合同法的进步起了促进作用。它使合同法及时地担负起促使债务人履行其债务、填补受害人损失的重任，既促进了合同法的逐步完善，又推动了经济的发展。基于此，本人欲在这个领域作一探索，自感学识浅显，且有力不从心之感，故且作为对自己三年研究生学习和十年法律实践的一次总结和理论探索的一次尝试。
违约责任的归责原则之所以未受到学者的高度重视，其主要原因是，大多学者认为两大法系均采用了单一的归责原则，即大陆法系采用过错责任原则，
英美法系采用严格责任原则（或无过错原则）。但从各国特别是欧美诸国合同法
的发展趋势看，交易的多样性，违约发生的原因及违约所致的后果的复杂性，
都导致归责任原则的多元化和两法系在实效上的不断趋同性。我国新修订的统
一合同法，在专家立法方面首开先河，吸取了两大法系的精华，确定了严格责
任和过错责任并存的双轨制归责原则，既符合我国社会主义市场经济的实际，
也顺应世界民商法发展的潮流并与国际相通，具有更加合理、实务的特点。但
由于缺乏深厚的法律本土资源，立法的基础性问题研究远远不及一部法律的出
台，由此推及司法实践，其急功近利及拿来主义的痕迹就非常明显。
本文的结构及研究方法是：第一部分是总论，介绍归责原则的立法基础；
第二部分是比较法，对两大法系的违约责任制度的归责原则进行梳理；第三部
分，结合我国合同法的发展历程，审视我国合同法归责任原则的现状，反思长
处与缺陷；第四部分，从归责原则的作用入手，对与归责任原则相关的一些问
题，如“归责事由”“免责事由”“损害赔偿范围的确立”，结合统一合同法的规
定作逐一分析，为进一步完善违约责任归责原则在司法实践中的适用提供理论
依据。同时，鉴于违约责任制度是一个系统工程，本文还将论及过错、过错推
定以及损害赔偿规则等等。
As an important measure of the performance of the contract, the contractual liability means that any party to the contract should be liable for the damages or liquidated damages in case the contract cannot be performed or not be performed properly . There are two kinds of liabilities under the chapter six "civil liability" of the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the contractual liability and tortous liability.
The contractual liability is one of the most critical system of the contract law , as well as the important composition of the Chinese civil liability.
The identification of the civil liability should be subject to certain principle of liability attribution. The attribution of the contractual liability refers to the legal principle that ascertain the contractual liability due to the certain legal reason for attributing liability. The attribution of liability should also lie on the judgement by the people whether the breaching party bear the responsibility or not . So the ascertainment of the criterion seems very important.
The heated discussion has been made in the academic circles on the principle of liability attribution in tort rather than in the breach of contract. The principle of liability attribution plays a decisive role in the systems of contractual breach, for it determines the composition of the contractual liability, the content of the burden of
adducing evidence and consequently the scope of the compensatory damages and the type of the contractual liability. It can be learned from the whole contract law that the principle of liability attribution furthers the achievement of the contract law in the following aspect-guaranteeing the debt performed timely and the damage filled up by the breaching party, which also results in the economic development. Consequently, the area mentioned above is worth to be studied as the summary of my three-year postgraduate course and rethinking of my ten-year judicial practice, although I know that my superficial knowledge is not equivalent to my ambition.
That the principle of liability attribution was not paid much attention in the academic circles lies in the point held by the most majority of scholars that the sole principle of liability attribution is adopted by the two law systems, such as the faulty liability attribution under the Continental laws system and the strict liability attribution (or non-faulty liability attribution) under the Anglo-American laws. However, from the tendency of the development of contract law in the world especially the European and American countries, the variety of the deal, as well as the complex cause and result of the breach will not only lead to the plurality
of the principle of liability attribution, but also make the two laws system reach unanimity in the effectiveness gradually. The newly-revised uniform Contract Law of China, ascertaining duet principle of liability attribution based on the essence of the two laws system, not only complied with the situation of the market economy of socialism with Chinese characteristic and the world trend of the development of civil and commercial laws, but also is more rational and practical. The foundational research on legislation lags far behind the promulgation of this law, lacking of the solid legal local resource. Therefore, the trace of eagering for quick
success and instant benefit is explicit in the judicial practice.
The research structure and measure of this thesis is : Chapter One, general, introduces the legislative basis of the principle of liability attribution; Chapter Two, comparative analysis, combs the principle of liability attribution under the two laws system; Chapter Three, examines the situation of principle of liability attribution
under the Chinese contract law and makes self-question of its advantage and weakness, combining the development course of the Chinese contract law; Chapter Four .analyses some issues related to the principle of liability attribution, such as "attribution of liability", "ex
民事责任的认定，必须遵循一定的归责原则。违约责任中的归责，是指基于一定的归责事由而确定违约责任成立的法律原则。这种法律原则，又必须依附于人们对因违约行为所导致的事实后果应否由违反合同的债务人承担的判断过程，因此标准的确定就显得极其重要了。
学术界就侵权责任的归责原则曾展开过激烈的讨论，但在违约责任归责原则方面，则探讨不够深入。归责原则在违约责任制度中有着重要的作用，它决定着违约责任的构成要件，决定着举证责任的内容，继而决定着赔偿责任的范围和违约责任的承担方式。因此，从整个合同法的角度看，归责原则对于合同法的进步起了促进作用。它使合同法及时地担负起促使债务人履行其债务、填补受害人损失的重任，既促进了合同法的逐步完善，又推动了经济的发展。基于此，本人欲在这个领域作一探索，自感学识浅显，且有力不从心之感，故且作为对自己三年研究生学习和十年法律实践的一次总结和理论探索的一次尝试。
违约责任的归责原则之所以未受到学者的高度重视，其主要原因是，大多学者认为两大法系均采用了单一的归责原则，即大陆法系采用过错责任原则，
英美法系采用严格责任原则（或无过错原则）。但从各国特别是欧美诸国合同法
的发展趋势看，交易的多样性，违约发生的原因及违约所致的后果的复杂性，
都导致归责任原则的多元化和两法系在实效上的不断趋同性。我国新修订的统
一合同法，在专家立法方面首开先河，吸取了两大法系的精华，确定了严格责
任和过错责任并存的双轨制归责原则，既符合我国社会主义市场经济的实际，
也顺应世界民商法发展的潮流并与国际相通，具有更加合理、实务的特点。但
由于缺乏深厚的法律本土资源，立法的基础性问题研究远远不及一部法律的出
台，由此推及司法实践，其急功近利及拿来主义的痕迹就非常明显。
本文的结构及研究方法是：第一部分是总论，介绍归责原则的立法基础；
第二部分是比较法，对两大法系的违约责任制度的归责原则进行梳理；第三部
分，结合我国合同法的发展历程，审视我国合同法归责任原则的现状，反思长
处与缺陷；第四部分，从归责原则的作用入手，对与归责任原则相关的一些问
题，如“归责事由”“免责事由”“损害赔偿范围的确立”，结合统一合同法的规
定作逐一分析，为进一步完善违约责任归责原则在司法实践中的适用提供理论
依据。同时，鉴于违约责任制度是一个系统工程，本文还将论及过错、过错推
定以及损害赔偿规则等等。
As an important measure of the performance of the contract, the contractual liability means that any party to the contract should be liable for the damages or liquidated damages in case the contract cannot be performed or not be performed properly . There are two kinds of liabilities under the chapter six "civil liability" of the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the contractual liability and tortous liability.
The contractual liability is one of the most critical system of the contract law , as well as the important composition of the Chinese civil liability.
The identification of the civil liability should be subject to certain principle of liability attribution. The attribution of the contractual liability refers to the legal principle that ascertain the contractual liability due to the certain legal reason for attributing liability. The attribution of liability should also lie on the judgement by the people whether the breaching party bear the responsibility or not . So the ascertainment of the criterion seems very important.
The heated discussion has been made in the academic circles on the principle of liability attribution in tort rather than in the breach of contract. The principle of liability attribution plays a decisive role in the systems of contractual breach, for it determines the composition of the contractual liability, the content of the burden of
adducing evidence and consequently the scope of the compensatory damages and the type of the contractual liability. It can be learned from the whole contract law that the principle of liability attribution furthers the achievement of the contract law in the following aspect-guaranteeing the debt performed timely and the damage filled up by the breaching party, which also results in the economic development. Consequently, the area mentioned above is worth to be studied as the summary of my three-year postgraduate course and rethinking of my ten-year judicial practice, although I know that my superficial knowledge is not equivalent to my ambition.
That the principle of liability attribution was not paid much attention in the academic circles lies in the point held by the most majority of scholars that the sole principle of liability attribution is adopted by the two law systems, such as the faulty liability attribution under the Continental laws system and the strict liability attribution (or non-faulty liability attribution) under the Anglo-American laws. However, from the tendency of the development of contract law in the world especially the European and American countries, the variety of the deal, as well as the complex cause and result of the breach will not only lead to the plurality
of the principle of liability attribution, but also make the two laws system reach unanimity in the effectiveness gradually. The newly-revised uniform Contract Law of China, ascertaining duet principle of liability attribution based on the essence of the two laws system, not only complied with the situation of the market economy of socialism with Chinese characteristic and the world trend of the development of civil and commercial laws, but also is more rational and practical. The foundational research on legislation lags far behind the promulgation of this law, lacking of the solid legal local resource. Therefore, the trace of eagering for quick
success and instant benefit is explicit in the judicial practice.
The research structure and measure of this thesis is : Chapter One, general, introduces the legislative basis of the principle of liability attribution; Chapter Two, comparative analysis, combs the principle of liability attribution under the two laws system; Chapter Three, examines the situation of principle of liability attribution
under the Chinese contract law and makes self-question of its advantage and weakness, combining the development course of the Chinese contract law; Chapter Four .analyses some issues related to the principle of liability attribution, such as "attribution of liability", "ex
引文
1、叶林著：《违约责任及其比较研究》，中国政法大学出版社，1996年。
2、王利明著：《侵权行为法归责原则研究》，中国政法大学出版社，1992年。
3、王利明著：《违约责任论》，中国政法大学出版社，1996年。
4、崔建远著：《合同责任研究》，吉林大学出版社，1992年。
5、崔建远著：《合同法》，法律出版社，1998年。
6、王家福等著：《合同法》，中国社会科学出版社，1986年。
7、李国光主编；《合同法释解与运用》，新华出版社，1999年。
8、梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》第8卷，第11卷，法律出版社，1997年。
9、崔建运著：《新合同法原理及案例评释》，吉林大学出版社，1999年。
10、江平主编、孔祥俊著：《合同法教程》，中国人民公安大学出版社，1999年。
11、[英]P·S·阿缔亚著：《合同法概论》，法律出版社，1984年。
12、何宝玉著：《英国合同法》，中国政法大学出版社，1999年。
13、王军编著：《美国合同法判例选评》，中国政法大学出版社，1998年。
14、王泽鉴著：《民法学说与判例研究》，中国政法大学出版社，1993年。
15、王卫国著：《过错责任原则——第三次勃兴》，中国法制出版社，2000年。
16、杨立新：《中国合同责任研究》，《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2000年第1期。
17、石少侠：《对我国合同立法若干争议问题的探讨》，《法制与社会发展》1998年第2期。
18、李双元：《关于我国新合同法几种新发展与一个亟待解决的问题》，《浙江社会科学》1999年第4期。
19、黄丽娟：《论新旧合同法之差异》，《社会科学家》1999年第4期。
20、田韶华：《论我国合同法上的严格责任原则》，《河北法学》2000年第期。
21、钱晓英：《世贸组织与合同法的违约归责原则》，《湖南公安高等专科学校学报》2000年第2期。
2、王利明著：《侵权行为法归责原则研究》，中国政法大学出版社，1992年。
3、王利明著：《违约责任论》，中国政法大学出版社，1996年。
4、崔建远著：《合同责任研究》，吉林大学出版社，1992年。
5、崔建远著：《合同法》，法律出版社，1998年。
6、王家福等著：《合同法》，中国社会科学出版社，1986年。
7、李国光主编；《合同法释解与运用》，新华出版社，1999年。
8、梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》第8卷，第11卷，法律出版社，1997年。
9、崔建运著：《新合同法原理及案例评释》，吉林大学出版社，1999年。
10、江平主编、孔祥俊著：《合同法教程》，中国人民公安大学出版社，1999年。
11、[英]P·S·阿缔亚著：《合同法概论》，法律出版社，1984年。
12、何宝玉著：《英国合同法》，中国政法大学出版社，1999年。
13、王军编著：《美国合同法判例选评》，中国政法大学出版社，1998年。
14、王泽鉴著：《民法学说与判例研究》，中国政法大学出版社，1993年。
15、王卫国著：《过错责任原则——第三次勃兴》，中国法制出版社，2000年。
16、杨立新：《中国合同责任研究》，《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2000年第1期。
17、石少侠：《对我国合同立法若干争议问题的探讨》，《法制与社会发展》1998年第2期。
18、李双元：《关于我国新合同法几种新发展与一个亟待解决的问题》，《浙江社会科学》1999年第4期。
19、黄丽娟：《论新旧合同法之差异》，《社会科学家》1999年第4期。
20、田韶华：《论我国合同法上的严格责任原则》，《河北法学》2000年第期。
21、钱晓英：《世贸组织与合同法的违约归责原则》，《湖南公安高等专科学校学报》2000年第2期。