Study On The System Of Judicial Adjustment In Liquidated Damages

The designment of liquidated damages judicial system is to to adjust the interests of boththe contractual relationship.The essence is to establish a fair market trading environment andabide by the values of fairness and impartiality and good faith. Therefore, judicial penaltyadjustment system is at the micro level great impact on both parties to the contract system.Design must therefore seek clarity on the legislation, but the law of contract in the theory andapplication of this but had failed to do so sufficiently clear and complete. Therefore, theauthor of " The Judicial System adjustment of liquidated damages" as the title, hoping to haveto refine the system helpfully.The first part describes the basic theory of judicial penalty adjustment system. Firstly,thesis explains the definition of the penalty. Second part explains a clear interpretation of themeaning of the judicial penalty adjustment system. Again, the legal basis for judicialadjustment system combing penalty, that’s why the parties are free to agree on its breach ofcontract and should be adjusted, pointing out that this is the maintenance needs of justice bycontract, by limiting the freedom of contract to uphold justice, interest bearing and require theparties to measure the benefits and liquidated itself attributes and functions. Finally, economicanalysis, and more specifically reflected in the adjustment of liquidated damages an importantrole in the market economy, but also need to adjust the penalty of Justice emphasized that thejudiciary in order to avoid the need to adjust the penalty exceeds the limit, it is necessary forthe freedom of the will of party autonomy be maintained, and thus adjust judicial penaltymust be carried out within a limited range, which is mainly through policy settings and applyspecific criteria to achieve.The second part discusses the foreign legislation of judicial penalty adjustment system.Judicial penalty introduced civil law countries adjust specific provisions of Justice (includingFrance, Germany, Japan, etc.) as well as common law countries (including the UnitedKingdom and the United States) requirements and other countries or regions of this system,thereby comparative analysis of the two those differences legislation, pointing out that the twolegal systems are recognized for liquidated damages provisions for judicial adjustment, butthe adjustment methods differ.The third part describes the adjustment of the penalty justice system. Including history, law and judicial practice issues applicable conditions of the system. Focuses on the judicialinterpretation of liquidated damages applicable conditions and adjustments in practice, theamount of liquidated damages to be adjusted on the issue.The fourth part is the focus of this article, explaining the basis of the previous analysis,which points out the lack of qualitative penalty system,.The existing legislative system ofliquidated damages for breach of contract do not divide the nature of liquidated damages,adjusting the gold standard does not breach and the lack of a clear breach of contract adjustprogram requirements. So contract law should establish a sound and reasonable adjustmentspenalty justice system into the penalty area penalty and punitive damages of breach contractand be regulated separately, precise adjustment of the standard provisions of liquidateddamages and penalty recommendations to improve judicial procedural adjust regulations.adjustment standards and the procedural provisions should be established.