Research On Judicial Application Of Penalty Adjustment Rules

Liability for breach of contract can be divided into statutory breach of contract liability and agreed breach of contract liability.In the context of private law autonomy,statutory breach of contract liability cannot fully satisfy the parties interest measurement and efficiency requirements in transaction.Take this role well.At present,there are major differences in the basic theories of liquidated damages in China,which makes the application of China's liquidated damages adjustment rules in judicial practice controversial.The discussion on liquidated damages in theory and practice is mainly entangled in the distinction between punitive contractual penalty and compensative contractual penalty and the existence of justification.The distinction and the legitimacy of existence are rarely discussed based on the original intention of the liquidated damages system.The applicable principle of China's liquidated damages adjustment rules is "primarily compensatory,supplemented by punitiveness,and then it appears whether liquidated damages are mainly pre-existing as total damages,and whether punitive liquidated damages should be restrained or even denied,and A series of disputes about how to deal with the amount of liquidated damages when the amount of liquidated damages exceeds the actual loss is the source of confusion in the theoretical and judicial application of the liquidated damages system.Therefore,it is necessary to conduct in-depth research and discussion on the liquidation theory and the specific application of the adjustment rules.China's socialist market economy has shifted from a high-speed development stage to a high-quality development stage.Both the government and society are actively creating an excellent business environment for market players to release social development momentum.As an important way of assuming liability for breach of contract in civil contracts,liquidated damages should first respect the autonomy of the parties.Its functional value is to set up liquidated damages clauses as a deterrent to guarantee contract performance.It is in line with substantive justice,and it rectifies the situation of simply hoping to make a profit through the breach of contract clause or making the breaching party fall into serious injustice due to the payment of a large amount of penalty clause.It is justified for the public power to intervene to adjust the improper breach of contract penalty.However,because the theoretical disputesconcerning liquidated damages have not been finalized,the existing legal rules for liquidated damages cannot play its due role in the judicial application process.The overall research idea of this article is: practice ? theory ? practice,such a research idea is more conducive to targeted problem solving.The primary purpose of the agreed liquidated damages is to guarantee the performance of the debt,followed by the creditor 's agreed liability for breach of contract to ensure that the debtor 's default benefits are beyond the statutory damages.Only under the premise of clearing the function of liquidated damages,the court can correctly use the liquidated damages adjustment rules to make a judgment accepted by all parties.From this standpoint,this article analyzes the theoretical and practical problems in the liquidated damages adjustment rules,and believes that it is wise to interpret them rationally from the perspective of judicial reality without changing the original rules Then,I put forward the relevant thinking and feasibility suggestions of the author in a targetedmanner.