Judgment Rules Of Obtainable Benefits In Compensation For Damages In Breach Of Contract

Compensation for damages,as a way to replace the continued performance of the liability for breach of contract,is widely used in various situations of breach of contract.Regarding the scope of damages,Article 113 of the Contract Law(Article584 of the Civil Code)clearly states that the available benefits are part of the performance benefits and are the benefits that can be expected to be obtained in the future corresponding to the existing damages.In the current judicial practice,although there are predictability rule,derogation rule,and negligence rule and even gains and losses balance rule that are used to judge the available benefits,there are also some problems in judicial practice.such as: only the higher the level the higher the court’s support for available benefits,most basic courts still hold a negative and cautious attitude towards the judgments on available benefits.secondly,in the reasoning used when vetoing available benefits,the most commonly used reason is the uncertainty of gains and losses includes the uncertainty of evidence and the uncertainty of calculation.Thirdly,although the rule of foreseeability have appeared more and more frequently in judgments in recent years,however,the courts at all levels and localities are not fully reasoned in their judgments.So,the aforementioned trial situation is not effective to strongly guard the lawful rights and interests of the plaintiff,and also violate the legal claims protected by the the contract law and the principle of honesty.Solving the issue of certainty in the trial of available benefits is of great significance to the trial of such cases.The author believes that before judging whether the available benefits are certain,it is important to examine whether there is a relationship between the the breach of contract and the unavailability of the interests.The judgment of the causal relationship should adopt the conditional rule of "but for",as long as it conforms to the objective normal development of things,it should be considered that the responsibility is established.Secondly,in terms of the certainty of the specific amount,the non-defaulting party’s standard of proof of the loss and the amount of the available benefits should be appropriately reduced,and reasonable certainty rule should be introduced.Such "reasonable certainty" only needs to provide a basis for the court to equitably estimate the degree of damage.predictability rule should be used more fully.The author believes that the application of predictability rule can fully learn from the standards established in Anglo-American law,and examine according to the order of the first rule(inferred understanding of normal circumstances)and the second rule(actual understanding of special circumstances).Secondly,given that the punitive nature of the law is to punish the parties for their faults,the application of predictability rule should be restricted in the case of intentional and gross negligence.Finally,in the standard of predictability rules,the principle of "for up not for down" should be adopted,which combines a rational third party with the defaulting party’s own standards.In addition,under the negligence rule,what is to be considered is the causal force of the non-defaulting party’s behavior on the loss and the degree of its subjective negligence.Under the derogation rules,the derogation measures should not be too demanding,as long as they have fulfilled their duty of diligence.