论文部分内容阅读
应当预见说,是指违约方承担赔偿责任,其范围不得超过他订立合同时应当预见到的损失的学说。我国《涉外经济合同法》第19条和《技术合同法》第17条的规定,都采取了应当预见说。在学术研究中,有一种观点对应当预见说推崇备至,主张修改后的《经济合同法》也应采取应当预见说。我不赞成这种观点,认为应具体情况具体分析。我的总的看法是:为了照顾到国际贸易的习惯,我国《涉外经济合同法》采用应当预见说尚有一定道理。但《经济合同法》则不宜采用应当预见说。
It should be foreseen that it means that the defaulting party should bear the liability for compensation and its scope must not exceed the doctrine of the loss that should be foreseen when he concluded the contract. Article 19 of the “Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign Economic Contracts” and Article 17 of the “Law on Technical Contracts” have all adopted the expectation. In academic research, there is a view that should be foreseen and respected, and the revised Economic Contract Law should also take predictability. I do not agree with this view and think that it should be analyzed concretely on a case-by-case basis. My general view is: In order to take into account the habit of international trade, China's “Foreign Economic Contract Law” should be foreseen that there is a certain truth. However, the “Economic Contract Law” should not be used should be expected to say.