A Study On The Scope Of Damages For The Breaching Party’s Judicial Cancellation Of The Contract Under The Deadlock Of Contract

The second paragraph of Article 580 of the Civil Code stipulates that the breaching party has the right of judicial cancellation of the contract in the event of a contract deadlock.This right is a right of judicial termination.However,this article only stipulates that the termination of the contract does not affect the liability for breach of contract,but the law does not specify how to bear the liability for breach of contract.The judicial termination right of the breaching party is a special exception of the contract cancellation system,so the corresponding liability for breach of contract in this case also reflects its particularity.The liability for breach of contract and the scope of compensation for the judicial termination of the contract by the breaching party do not apply to the general rules under the termination of the contract.According to the original intention of the system design for the breaching party to terminate the contract,it is not suitable for the“continue to perform” liability for breach of contract.As far as the scope of damages is concerned,the compensation scope of "actual losses + available benefits" stipulated in Article 584 of the Civil Code is unfavorable to the breaching party,violates the principle of fairness,and does not conform to the purpose of system design;If the scope of compensation provided in Article 584 cannot be supported,it will be detrimental to the non-defaulting party and violate the principle of compensation for damages.After excluding the way of assuming responsibility for continued performance,the parties may choose to apply other ways of assuming responsibility.In the event that the parties agree with each other and the liquidated damages and deposits are agreed,the penalty for liquidated damages and deposits shall be applied in priority.Reasonable adjustments should be made to the excessively high liquidated damages and deposit scope in accordance with the law.In cases where there is no agreement,the scope of compensation for breach of contract stipulated in Article 584 of the Civil Code shall be used as the standard for compensation.The determination of "available benefits" in the scope of compensation has problems in judicial determination and inconsistent judgments.Reasonable regulations should be made on damage compensation based on the principle of foreseeability,the principle of derogation,and the principle of offsetting profits and losses.At the same time,it should be noted that in the contract deadlock,it is more difficult to prove the performance of the interest,and the performance of the interest is less than the reliance of the interest.In order to protect the contract rights of the nonbreaching party and prevent the breaching party from arbitrarily exercising the right of judicial dissolution to undermine the principle of good faith in the civil law,it is necessary to introduce damage compensation for reliance interests.The scope of damages for reliance interests includes the cost of preparing the contract,the cost of contracting and the loss of opportunity.