Research On The Judicial Judgment Of The Material "increased Price"

In the sales contracts of main building materials,especially steel,there are a lot of "price increase" or similar agreements.The essence of these agreements is that the price increases with the time of the buyer's payment.Because the concept of "price increase" can not be accurately contained in the current law concept,the position in the sales contract and the way of price increase are also different.What is the nature of "price increase" ? Especially the nature of buyer's selective price increase is confronted with theoretical divergence.Considering the system explanation,party autonomy,industry practice,law of value and market conditions,it is impossible to prove that the buyer's selective price increase belongs to the price.Buyer's selective price increase corresponds to liquidated damages in many ways,so the buyer's selective price increase should be regarded as a variant of liquidated damages.In the application of law,we can adopt the method of "analogy application" and refer to the rules of liquidated damages,that is,"to apply the express provisions of law to the cases which are not directly stipulated by the law,but whose important characteristics are the same as those expressly stipulated by the provisions." After confirming that the buyer's optional premium is also a "variant" liquidated damages,it involves the judgment and proof of whether the premium is too high,and the adjustment after determining the excessive premium.In this regard,the Adjudication Rules of the courts have not been unified.According to the judgment of local courts,the adjusted liquidated damages standards are various.From an empirical point of view,the highest four times interest rate is used most,followed by the loan interest rate.But can we ask for a reduction in the confirmed price increase? In addition,the buyer and seller agreed to increase the price(liquidated damages),but also agreed that the buyer waived the right to apply for court reductions.Is this agreement valid? The opinions of the courts in different places are also different.The tendency is that the liquidated damages that have been settled and confirmed should not be adjusted even if they are too high.For the adjustment of liquidated damages,the judiciary should hold a restrained position and should not interfere in the field of Party autonomy.Although the agreed penalty for breach of contract is too high,the confirmation by both parties means that the two parties have approved the penalty for breach of contract more than twice.Considering the principle of subjective equivalence in the judgment of the principle of fairness in the civil field,the buyer demands adjustment on the grounds of excessive excess,which is obviously dishonest.Although the judiciary should hold a restrained position on the adjustment of the price increase(liquidated damages),it is not appropriate to recognize the validity of the agreement on waiving the liquidated damages adjustment claim,that is to say,the discretionary right of liquidated damages can not be agreed to waive.