Research On Judicial Application Of Deposit Penalty

The deposit penalty rule has a long history in my country,and it is also undergoing changes in order to adapt to social and economic development and the improvement of my country’s rule of law.Article 588 of the "Civil Code" has made basic legal compliance with the application of the deposit penalty,liquidated damages and damages.However,in judicial practice,the specific application of the deposit penalty is more complicated.The deposit itself should be differentiated by type,and different types of deposits have different properties,and whether the deposit penalty can be applied should also be treated differently.Similarly,liquidated damages are also divided into compensatory liquidated damages and punitive liquidated damages.Various types of deposits and various types of liquidated damages cannot simply be understood as the position of choosing one application according to the laws and regulations,but should be carefully defined by the parties’ agreement and treated differently.When the deposit and liquidated damages point to different breaches of contract,there is no conflict between the two,and they should be allowed to be used together in accordance with the principle of private law autonomy.In other words,the premise that either the deposit penalty or the liquidated damages can be applied is the same breach of contract.By distinguishing between compensatory liquidated damages and punitive liquidated damages and discussing the principle of alternative application of deposit penalties,there seems to be a reasonable space for the parallel application of the two.When both the deposit and the liquidated damages have the same function,that is,as a form of liability for breach of contract,the amount of compensation for the deposit has already affected the reduction of the liquidated damages in practice.Explore.Article 588 of the "Civil Code" confirms the combination of deposit and damages,which is worthy of affirmation and will inevitably bring new application doubts.This article consists of six sections,including:The first part is the introduction.,mainly introduces the background of this paper and the research significance and value of this paper.At present,my country has improved the system and rules of deposit to a certain extent through the promulgation of the Civil Code,but there are still many theoretical and practical problems to be solved in the specific application,especially when it involves liquidated damages and damages.necessary.The first chapter is the historical evolution of the deposit system and the theoretical analysis of the deposit penalty.This chapter introduces the development and current situation of the domestic system of deposit,and focuses on summarizing the deposit of the current deposit system in the domestic feudal period,at the theoretical level and at the normative level.The type of deposit is analyzed,and it is clarified that the application of the deposit penalty must meet the requirements of the validity of the deposit contract,the breach of contract,and the degree to which the breach must cause the purpose of the contract to fail.The issue of recovery from third parties.The second chapter is the investigation and analysis of the empirical data of judicial application of the deposit penalty.Through big data analysis and specific case analysis,this chapter summarizes the right choice tendency and judgment tendency of non-compliant parties in judicial application of deposit penalty rules,and sorts out various problems and situations in the application: the concept of deposit and other concepts such as deposit Confusion;when claiming rights,most of the non-compliance parties choose to claim the liability for liquidated damages,and rarely claim both the liability for the deposit and the liability for liquidated damages at the same time;in the situation where both the liability for the deposit and the liquidated damages are claimed at the same time,they are rarely supported by the trial court.There are also courts that can uphold the coexistence of both when different breaches occur at the same time.In both the deposit liability and the liability for damages,the observant party tends to choose the deposit compensation and demand damages at the same time,and the claims for the loss are various,and the judgment standards of the courts are also different.The third chapter is the choice of deposit penalty and liquidated damages.This chapter focuses on the study and discussion of the application relationship between the deposit penalty and the liquidated damages,and especially distinguishes the possible space for the parallel application of compensatory liquidated damages and punitive liquidated damages under certain types of deposits.Next,discuss the possibility of applying judicial discretion by analogy to the deposit penalty.Judicial reduction of liquidated damages under the current law should be prudent and limited to more extreme cases.On the one hand,the condition that the liquidated damages are excessively higher than the breached losses must be met in each case,with reference to the standard that the liquidated damages should be reduced by more than30% of the losses;on the other hand,Certain restrictions should also be made taking into account the systemic effect of the specific rules of the liquidated deposit itself,such as the application of judicial discretion within a limit of 20%.The fourth chapter is the choice of the application of the penalty of deposit and damages.This chapter starts from the norm of Article 588 of the Civil Code,discusses the application relationship between the penalty of deposit and damages,and raises the difficult points of judicial application when the two are used together.This norm provides basic directions for the two applicable relationships,and essentially endows the deposit penalty with the compensatory function,but at the same time,it also brings about the problem of increasing the burden of proof.The author also found that in judicial application,the non-observing parties all claimed that the nature of the interest to be repaid was ambiguous and the judgment standards were different.The last is the conclusion,which summarizes the whole paper.