Huifeng Huanan Chuangzhan Enterprise Co. Ltd. of Shaoguan City v. Guangdong Provincial Environmental Engineering & Equipment Co. Ltd. and Guangdong Environment Protection Engineering Research & Design Institute
(contract dispute) | | 韶关市汇丰华南创展企业有限公司与广东省环境工程装备总公司广东省环境保护工程研究设计院合同纠纷案 |
[Case summary] | |
[裁判摘要] |
Article 29 of the Interpretation II of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China prescribes that “Where a party alleges that the liquidated damages are too high and requests a proper reduction, the people's court shall weigh the request and make a ruling on the basis of actual losses, in consideration of the performance of contract, seriousness of the fault of the party, expected benefits and other comprehensive factors and under the principles of fairness and good faith. If the liquidated damages agreed upon by the parties exceed the losses incurred by 30%, generally, it shall be deemed as ‘excessively higher than the losses resulting from the breach' as mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 114 of the Contract Law.” The calculation of actual losses shall be made on the basis of the actual losses incurred by the non-breaching party as a result of the breaching party's non-performance of the disputed contract containing a liquidated damages clause, excluding other losses arising out of the contract. Losses incurred by one party arising from another contract shall not be deemed as the basis for determining the actual loss of the contract at issue, even if such contract bears some relationship to the contract at issue. | |
最高人民法院《关于适用＜中华人民共和国合同法＞若干问题的解释(二)》第二十九条规定：“当事人主张约定的违约金过高请求予以适当减少的，人民法院应当以实际损失为基础，兼顾合同的履行情况、当事人的过错程度以及预期利益等综合因素，根据公平原则和诚实信用原则予以衡量，并作出裁决。当事人约定的违约金超过造成损失的百分之三十的，一般可以认定为合同法第一百一十四条第二款规定的‘过分高于造成的损失'。”在计算实际损失数额时，应当以因违约方未能履行双方争议的、含有违约金条款的合同，给守约方造成的实际损失为基础进行计算，将合同以外的其他损失排除在外。对于一方当事人因其他合同受到的损失，即使该合同与争议合同有一定的牵连关系，也不能简单作为认定争议合同实际损失的依据。 |
The provision of “the liquidated damages agreed upon by the parties exceed the losses incurred by 30%” in the foregoing judicial interpretation shall be construed in a comprehensive and accurate manner. On the one hand, whether the liquidated damages are excessively high shall be determined according to the actual circumstances of the case, on the basis of actual losses, in consideration of multiple factors including the performance of the contract, seriousness of the fault and expected benefits, and under the principles of fairness and good faith. "Thirty percent" is not a fixed standard. On the other hand, the above provision aims to provide a standard for determining whether the liquidated damages are excessively high, rather than furnish a standard for the people's courts to reduce the liquidated damages as appropriate. Therefore, in the adjudication of cases of "liquidated damages agreed upon by the parties exceeding the losses by 30%", they cannot be indiscriminately regarded as "excessively higher than losses incurred" as prescribed in paragraph 2 of Article 114 of the Contract Law; neither can the liquidated damages be indiscriminately reduced to 130% of the actual losses while “a proper reduction in the liquidated damages” is made according to law. | |
对于前述司法解释中“当事人约定的违约金超过造成损失的百分之三十”的规定应当全面、正确地理解。一方面，违约金约定是否过高应当根据案件具体情况，以实际损失为基础，兼顾合同的履行情况、当事人的过错程度以及预期利益等综合因素，根据公平原则和诚实信用原则综合予以判断，“百分之三十”并不是一成不变的固定标准；另一方面，前述规定解决的是认定违约金是否过高的标准，不是人民法院适当减少违约金的标准。因此，在审理案件中，既不能机械地将“当事人约定的违约金超过造成损失的百分之三十”的情形一概认定为合同法第一百一十四条第二款规定的“过分高于造成的损失”，也不能在依法“适当减少违约金”数额时，机械地将违约金数额减少至实际损失的百分之一百三十。 |
Supreme People's Court | |
最高人民法院 |
Civil ruling | |
民事裁定书 |
No. 84 (2011), Civil Retrial Case | |
(2011)民再申字第84号 |
BASIC FACTS | |
|
Applicant for retrial (plaintiff in the first trial, appellant in the appeal, original respondent): Huifeng Huanan Chuangzhan Enterprise Co. Ltd. of Shaoguan City. Domicile: Room 906, Block C, Yihe Square, Fengdu Zhong Road, Zhenjiang District, Shaoguan City, Guangdong Province. | |
申请再审人(一审原告、二审上诉人、原被申诉人)：韶关市汇丰华南创展企业有限公司。 |
Legal representative: Qiu Zhaoliang, general manager of the company. | |
法定代表人：邱招良，该公司总经理。 |
Respondent (defendant in the first trial, appellant in the appeal, original claimant): Guangdong Provincial Environmental Engineering & Equipment Co. Ltd. Domicile: 5th Floor, Complex Building of Provincial Agricultural Equipment Company, Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province. | |
被申请人(一审被告、二审上诉人、原申诉人)：广东省环境工程装备总公司。 |
Legal representative: Hu Jibo, general manager of the company. | |
法定代表人：胡继波，该公司总经理。 |
Respondent (defendant in the first trial, appellant in the appeal, original claimant): Guangdong Environmental Protection Engineering Research & Design Institute. Domicile: 5th Floor, Complex Building of Provincial Agricultural Equipment Company, Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province. | |
被申请人(一审被告、二审上诉人、原申诉人)：广东省环境保护工程研究设计院。 |
Legal representative: Hu Jibo, President of the institute. | |
法定代表人：胡继波，该院院长。 |
Huifeng Huanan Chuangzhan Enterprise Co. Ltd. (the “Huifeng Company”), applicant for the retrial, refused to accept the civil judgment No. 153 (2010) rendered by Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court for the contract dispute case involving the applicant and the respondents Guangdong Provincial Environmental Engineering & Equipment Co. Ltd. (the “Environmental Equipment Company”) and Guangdong Environmental Protection Engineering Research & Design Institute (the “Environmental Protection Institute”) and applied to this Court for retrial of the case. This Court formed a collegial panel pursuant to law to review this case and has concluded the review of this case. | |
申请再审人韶关市汇丰华南创展企业有限公司(以下简称汇丰公司)因与被申请人广东省环境工程装备总公司(以下简称环境装备公司)、广东省环境保护工程研究设计院(以下简称环保设计院)合同纠纷一案，不服广东省高级人民法院(2010)粤高法审监民提字第153号民事判决，向本院申请再审。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行了审查，现已审查终结。 |
In its application for retrial, Huifeng Company made the following three statements. 1. The Agreement involved in the case was executed for the situation where the Environmental Equipment Company and the Environmental Protection Institute fail to perform the EPC General Contract they signed with Huifeng Company. Although the Agreement stipulated a double damages clause, the damages in question, when viewed against the EPC General Contract, account for only 3% of the total project payment and are therefore a relatively low and reasonable amount for penalty. Also, the double damages clause binds both parties rather than one single party. Where Huifeng Company breaches the contract, it shall bear the liability for liquidated damages as prescribed by the contract. Accordingly, the raised issues of unequal status of both parties and unconscionability of the contract are unfounded. 2. Judging from the nature and objective of the liquidated damages stipulated in the Agreement in the case, the double damages are punitive damages designed to ensure the performance of the contract and do not violate the provisions of laws. Therefore, they should not be adjusted. 3. Huifeng Company is the non-defaulting party and the breach of contract by the Environmental Equipment Company and the Environmental Protection Institute inflicted heavy losses on Huifeng Company. Huifeng Company applied for a retrial pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph 6 of paragraph 1 of Article 179 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
．．．．．． | |
汇丰公司申请再审称：1．涉案《协议书》签订的背景是环境装备公司、环保设计院不履行其与汇丰公司签订的《EPC总承包合作合同书》，涉案《协议书》虽约定了双倍违约金条款，但相对于《EPC总承包合作合同书》来看，违约金仅仅是总工程款的百分之三，是较低而且合理的惩罚金额。同时，双倍违约金条款是约束合同双方当事人而非仅仅约束一方当事人的，如果汇丰公司违约，也应按合同承担相应的违约金责任，不存在合同双方地位不平等、合同显失公平的问题。2．从涉案《协议书》约定的违约金的性质和目的看，双倍违约金是为保证合同履行的惩罚性违约金，不违反法律规定，不应予以调整。3．汇丰公司是守约方，环境装备公司、环保设计院违约，给汇丰公司造成了巨大损失。汇丰公司依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百七十九条第一款第(六)项的规定申请再审。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥400.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |