Study On Judicial Application Of Integrity And Liquidated Damages

Anti-corruption and clean government has caused extensive concern nationwide,among which Huawei,TCL,JDcom and other large enterprises have set off a wave of signing "integrity agreement" and "anti-commercial bribery agreement".In recent years,with the rapid development of the economy,the phenomenon of commercial bribery is becoming increasingly fierce,and it is not uncommon for both parties to use commercial bribery for seeking a dominant position.The Chinese Central Party is constantly calling on all units to resist commercial bribery,and to create a good market operation environment.The clean liquidated damages clause,as a new relief means,is widely applied in various commercial activities.In respect of the validity of the clean liquidated damages clause,the courts have different attitudes,causing a “different sentences for similar cases” ubiquitous phenomena.As a result,the function of punitive liquidated damages to prevent commercial bribery is greatly reduced.Moreover,the legitimate rights and interests of commercial subjects are damaged,limited judicial resource wasted and judicial authority affected seriously.Hence,it is the quickly perfection of punitive liquidated damages system that plays a vital role in the development of China's market economy.In terms of China's current national conditions and the legal environment for the implementation of honesty clauses,the effectiveness of honesty liquidated damages is still faced with many questions and challenges.In this case,it is a big problem in front of us whether a feasible solution can be provided for the increasingly serious commercial bribery.This article,teasing out 52 cases in judicial practice and using a typical case happened to Jinko Solar Co.Ltd as a breakthrough point,makes a contrastive analysis of different attitudes towards punitive liquidated damages in some main representative countries,does a deep research of the legal basis and practice towards the validity of the liquidated damages clause which the court had decided.Through sorting out the judicial cases,we could find that cases towards liquidated damages clause which the court eventually support or partially support(the amount of liquidated damages being adjusted but still can reflect the punitive nature)is not uncommon,however,the adjustment towards the exact amount of liquidateddamagesvaries,failed in forming a unified rule.After analyzing the cases and combining with the current contract law theory,the following conclusion can be preliminarily drawn: the punitive penalty for breach of contract is legal and reasonable.Firstly,in terms of defining criteria,the breaching party shall pay punitive liquidated damages in addition to the actual damages.Secondly,in discussing whether to support the punitive liquidated damages,the author thinks that it is of positive significance for prevention of commercial bribery and realization of the penalty function of liquidated damages,which fully shows the autonomy,fairness and justice as well as the principle of good faith embodied in civil law,and plays a particularly important role in maintenance of contract stability,healthy and orderly development of market economy.As we know,the specific application scope of punitive liquidated damages is very broad,which can be applied to all occasions of breach of contract.Therefore,in order to prevent it from being abused,limiting the specific conditions of application may be appropriate and certain discretion shall be given to the judge towards the upper limit of punitive liquidated damages.The specific amount shall be adjusted according to the benefit and cost analysis,and combined with the different cases without being confined to a single standard.For the case where the actual loss cannot be quantified,the court shall also affirm the efficacy of punitive liquidated damages.