損害賠償：合同明示條文優(yōu)于法律原則的案例

在英國(guó)法下,，違約損失賠償，尤其是在一個(gè)有效的市場(chǎng)下,，一般遵循的原則就是,，差價(jià)損失賠償。就是合約價(jià)與違約時(shí)市場(chǎng)價(jià)的差額,，如果沒有差額,，那就只賠償名義損失（實(shí)際相當(dāng)于不賠償）。當(dāng)然,，守約方在此有一個(gè)義務(wù),，就是減少損失的義務(wù)，否則擴(kuò)大的損失違約方不賠,。

以上就是法律的一般賠償原則,，但是如果合約對(duì)損失賠償?shù)挠?jì)算有約定，且不違反法律等情況，那么可以超越法律的原則,，損失計(jì)算以合約為準(zhǔn),。

本文以 BUNGE SA v  NIDERA BV 案例為例，說明明示條文超越法律原則的情況,。

案情簡(jiǎn)介：

買賣雙方簽署合同,，買方購買一批小麥，簽署合約后,，賣方毀約解除合約,，同時(shí)賣方再次以原先合約的相同條款向買方發(fā)出邀約，遭到買方拒絕,，后買方申請(qǐng)仲裁,，確認(rèn)賣方毀約，并按照合約約定賠償損失,。賣方爭(zhēng)論到,，按照法律原則，在有效市場(chǎng)下,，買方?jīng)]有差價(jià)損失,，因?yàn)橘u方隨后以相同的條款向買方發(fā)出要約，買方拒絕,，買方?jīng)]有履行減少損失的義務(wù),，對(duì)此擴(kuò)大的損失賣方不賠。最后仲裁請(qǐng)支持了買方的請(qǐng)求,。本案中關(guān)于損失賠償爭(zhēng)論的焦點(diǎn)就在于合同中的違約賠償條款是否可以超越法律的一般原則,，仲裁庭認(rèn)為可以超越。

合約中的違約賠償條款如下：

In default of fulfilment of contract by either party ,the following provisons shall apply:

    (a)the party other than the defaulter shall,at their discretion have the right,after serving notice on the defaulter,to sell or purchase ,as the case may be ,against the de faulter,and such sale or purchase shall establish the default price.

(b)if either party be dissatisfied with such default price or if the right at(a) is not exercised and damages cannot be mutually agreed ,then the assessment of damages shall be settled by the arbitration.

(c) the damages payable shall be based on .but not limited to ,the difference between the contract price and either the default price established under (a) above or the actual or estimated value of the goods on the date of default established under (b) above

(d)in all cases the damages shall ,in addition,include any proven additional expenses which would directly and naturally result in the ordinary course of enents from the defaulters breach of contract ,but shall in no case include loss of profit on any sub-contracts made by the party defaulted anainst or other unless the arbitrators of board of appeal ,having regard to special circumstances,shall in his/their sole and absolute discretion think fit.

(e) damages ,if any shall be computed on the quantity called for,but if no such quantity has been declard then on the mean contract quantity and any option available to either party shall be deemed to have been exercised accordingly in favour of the mean contract quantity.

仲裁庭的對(duì)上述條紋的評(píng)論：上述違約賠償條文,，非常容易理解,，廣泛的應(yīng)用于貿(mào)易中。買方著中強(qiáng)調(diào)的是一種確定性,，上述條文是能夠滿足這種確定性的。雖然與法律原則規(guī)定的損失賠償方式不同,，但是這種不同應(yīng)被允許,， 故此本案不能適用一般損失賠償?shù)姆稍瓌t。

綜上,，在國(guó)際貿(mào)易中,，尤其是在適用英國(guó)法的情況下，需要明確的一點(diǎn),，在商事領(lǐng)域?qū)嵭械氖歉叨鹊囊馑甲灾?，只要約定的清楚、充分，是可以排除法律的適用的,。