A Stud Of Evidence Rule Of Compromise

There are a lot of compromise and offers to compromise(hereinafter referred to as compromise)in social life,such as industrial injury compensation negotiation in employment relationship,installment settlement negotiation in sales contract and so on.In our civil litigation,insufficient attention has been paid to the protection of the security and privacy of the conciliatory exchanges,resulting in a lot of conciliatory acts in the litigation become the adverse evidence to prove the parties’ responsibility or to determine the amount of compensation,which severely undermines the parties’ enthusiasm to propose and accept the settlement.This paper discusses the construction of the evidence rule of compromise in our country on the basis of referring to other relevant legislation.Main contents and views are as follows:The first chapter discusses the principle of the compromise evidence rule.First,the epistatic concept of evidence rule--evidence rule that cannot be used to prove fault and liability is studied.This consists of four rules of evidence:(1)the rule of subsequent remedial measures,(2)the rule of compromise and offers to compromise,(3)the rule of offers to pay medical and similar expenses,and(4)the rule of liability insurance.These rules,known as the "good man rules",aim to promote social harmony and avoid the parties to bear the fault and responsibility for the above good deeds,so as to encourage the parties to engage in socially beneficial behaviors.For example,after the occurrence of product quality problems,manufacturers take remedial measures recall hidden products.Secondly,the basic principle of the conciliation evidence rule lies in the relevance theory and the publicity theory: evidence related to conciliation has weak proof power,under the external policy of social harmony,such evidence is not admissible in proving fault and compensation amount.The exception is that settlement evidence may be used to prove other disputed facts,such as witness bias or parties actively settling to refute claims of delay.Thirdly,although the compromise evidence rule aims to promote the compromise of parties,it still produces certain differences and disputes in extraterritorial judicial practice.First,different courts have disputes over the applicable premise,and have different understandings on the judgment of "there is actual dispute",such as "approaching litigation theory","the broadest interpretation","offer refusal theory";Second,when the application of the compromise evidence rule becomes controversial and a priori test is needed,the balance test that the risk substantially exceeds the probative power will inhibit the application of the compromise evidence rule.The second chapter examines the value basis of the compromise evidence rule and probes into its intrinsic value and extrinsic value.First of all,in the value pillar of evidence law composed of accuracy,justice,harmony and efficiency,the internal value of this rule focuses on litigation efficiency,while the external value aims at promoting the harmonious development of society.Secondly,in terms of intrinsic value,namely efficiency,the construction of a society under the rule of law must adapt to the objective requirements of market economy and implement contractual relief in the field of dispute resolution according to the spirit of contract.From the perspective of "economic man",the parties’ choice of compromise and the state’s support for compromise are both cost-effective and rational choices,so the establishment of evidence rules to encourage the parties to compromise and guarantee the freedom of negotiation is in line with the requirements of contractual relief.Thirdly,as far as the harmonious value is concerned,the compromise evidence rule plays an important role in promoting the construction of harmonious society.The exclusion of compromise evidence used to prove fault and responsibility in litigation can encourage parties to participate in negotiations by reducing the income of the behavior of adopting compromise evidence,so that more disputes can be settled peacefully,which is conducive to maintaining the harmonious development of society.Chapter three discusses how to construct the rules of compromise evidence in our country.First of all,it is necessary and urgent to establish the rules.Due to the lack of compromise evidence rule in China,the scope of protection of compromise behavior is too narrow.In judicial practice,judges generally adopt evidence inside and outside litigation to identify the fault and responsibility of the parties,which prevents people from taking the initiative to reconcile and accept the good motive of compromise,hinders the spontaneous settlement of many social disputes,and causes huge social costs.Secondly,the institutional framework of the rules of evidence can be designed from the two stages of court investigation and review and judgment,as well as the two perspectives of parties’ evidence cross-examination and judges’ post-court comments.The whole elements of the application of the rules,including preconditions,exclusion content and legal effect,can be planned,including three suggestions: First,it clarifies the position of compromise evidence rule as evidence law,which regulates the evidence access conditions of compromise behavior in individual cases,and is not used to evaluate the substantive law effect of behavior itself,which is evaluated by civil substantive law.The second is to properly deal with the relationship between compromise and mediation,both of which belong to the consensual dispute resolution mechanism.The parties have a wide autonomy to deal with disputes,and both meet the value requirements of social harmony and litigation efficiency.Therefore,mediation behavior should be included in the scope of exclusion of compromise evidence.The third is to do a good job in the connection with the self-admission system,expand the exception of self-admission from litigation mediation and litigation settlement to the whole field of pre-litigation,and limit the purpose of proof without self-admission effect to the dispute point of "the responsibility to prove the disputed facts and determine the amount of compensation" in the litigation stage.