Research On The Scope Of Damages For Cancellation Upon Breach Of Contracts

When the purpose of one contract can’t be realized because of actual breach by one party of the contract, the other party can exercise the statutory right of cancellation to terminate the contract, the problem is that after the cancellation of the contract, whether the other party has the right to claim damages? If so, how should the scope of damages be determined, whether in terms of the performance interests or the reliance interests; Whether the benefit available to be included in the scope of damages; how about the damages beyond the breach of the contract?In fact, the point that cancellation and damages could coexist had already been accepted by most countries, and was affirmed by contract of china. But there are no explicit provisions in contract law of china and unified ways in judicial practice about the scope of damages for cancellation upon breach of contracts. And moreover, there is no overall discussion about the issue in academicals circles. Through the analysis, the author found determine the range of compensation is the key to the retrospective. Therefore, through the compared research of legislation examples and theories of some countries, up on the carding and discussion of relevant theories of cancellation, the author tries to discuss the scope of damages for cancellation un on breach of contracts. The paper mainly resolves two issues:first, for damages, connection with different sentenced to exist in the judicial practice, this affected the judicial impartiality and authority; second, through the analysis of concept of "discharge" to know the scope of damage compensation in our country. This paper is divided into four chapters.Chapter one mainly discusses the case analysis. The author collected60cases and analysis of the damage compensation scope of them, we found55 compensation for reliance interests and5for performance interests. There are1/2cases that the judge did not specify reasons for compensation, in13cases the judge in the opinion that discharging has retrospective and3not. This different make a sense, unfair on the parties, so, it is necessary to discuss the scope of discharge of contract by breach.Chapter two mainly compared the theories and legislation examples in some countries, we know there are many differences between "lifting" and "discharging", many countries determined the retroactive effect by distinguish between the nature of the contract. Our contract law neither distinguish between the "lifting" and the "discharging" nor tell the nature of contract.so, the author think the scope of the damage compensation in article97of contract law include: Performance interests and Reliance interests.Chapter three mainly discusses the rules of claims for damages. This part is very important, it main introduces the breach party shall only get full compensation and the compensation should be limited to balance the interests of both parties.Chapter four is the summary, elaborate the author’s opinion, analysis the structure and writing methods in this paper. We should discuss how to distinguish between the natures of the contract in the future.