分站:劳动法 婚姻法 债权债务 房地产 交通法 公司法 合同法 证券法 税法 刑事辩护 买房指南 涉外法律 律师加盟 法律咨询 联系我们
上海法律网

专题
频道

法治动态 | 理论研究 | 疑难实务 | 经典案例 | 法律法规 | 上海法规 | 法律图书 | 合同文本 | 海事海商
房产律师 | 婚姻律师 | 劳动律师 | 公司律师 | 合同律师 | 交通医疗 | 刑事行政 | 保险证券 | 知识产权
 
·上海律师免费加盟本站的公告
·本站招募法律专家顾问的公告
·本站招募区县独家合作律师
·知识产权律师 13621792142
 您现在的位置: 上海法律网 >> 涉外法律 >> 涉外诉讼仲裁 >> 正文

Is the right to ask court to adjust contractual liquidated damages waivable?

上海法律网 www.sh148.org 来源:本站原创 点击进入:法律咨询热线

Very often, Chinese lawyers get frustrated in courts, when judges decide to lower the pre-set amount of liquidated damages in a contract in dispute at the request of the defendant made in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 114 of PRC Contract Law, which says “in the case that the amount of liquidated damages is lower than the losses caused, the parties to the contract may request the court or arbitration institution to increase that amount; in the case that the amount of liquidated damages is excessively greater than the losses caused, the parties to the contract may request the court or arbitration institution to appropriately decrease that amount”. I have personally undergone such frustrations in real estate disputes in Shanghai courts, where the courts simply refused to respect the agreement of parties on the liquidated damages.

In response to such courts’ practice, some lawyers have come up with the idea that the agreed amount of liquidated damages may be recognized and enforced by courts if the breaching party has waived its right to request court or arbitration institutions to decrease the amount of liquidated damages. At least, such waiver should be able to enhance the chances of upholding such amounts by the non-breaching party.

However, here comes the question: will such clause be held valid by courts? The answer is not unequivocal.

Lawyers tend to hold that such clause should be valid and enforceable. Under PRC Contract Law, Article 52 is cited when analyzing the validity of a contract clause. When examining the clause thereunder, we see no violation thereof by such agreement on such waiver.

However, judges are more inclined to hold that such clause is invalid. Theoretically, it is the courts’ opinion that such right is in nature a right for judicial remedy, which right is a fundamental and constitutional right, an un-deprivable and un-waivable right. Practically, it is a historical momentum of Chinese courts to intervene the self-autonomy of private parties. Such stance of the courts may be just another embodiment of that propensity in Chinese judiciary system.

Unclear though it is about the validity of such waiver or about whether a waiver clause can bar the court from exerting the power to review the liquidated damages, we found that courts may still look directly at the liquidated damages clause in spite of such a waiver.

On April 24, 2009, the second piece of judicial interpretation of PRC Contract Law (the “Interpretation”) by the Supreme People’s Court of China was promulgated, casting light on the apprehension of Article 114. While it is silent in regard of validity of such waiver, according to the Interpretation, upon a party claiming that the amount of the liquidated damages is too high, the people’s courts shall, based on the principles of equity and good faith, make decision by taking into consideration of the overall factors such as real losses, performance of contract, fault of parties and expected benefits. Literally, it says that upon request by a party, the courts will generally look at whether or not the agreed liquidated damages are fair and made in good faith.

However, we noticed that in a judgment ([2004]MinErZhongZi No.125) delivered by the Supreme People’s Court, it was held that “liquidated damages are mainly intended to compensate the losses of a party, not to severely punish the defaulting party; in our contract law, liquidated damages are used principally as a form of civil liabilities, therefore, such clause cannot be left at the absolute discretion of the parties, esp, those clauses involving unduly excessive amount of liquidated damages. Otherwise, it will virtually mean encouraging people to rip off huge profits through inappropriate methods”. From these lines, it seems quite apparent that courts can go straight to review clauses concerning liquidated damages no matter there is a waiver clause or not.

Further, during the making of the Interpretation, there was once a draft setting forth that “in the case of intentional breach of contract, the people’s courts shall not support the request made by breaching party to lower the amount of liquidated damages”. But in the end, this sentence was taken out, further indicating that the Supreme People’s Court will even adjust the amount of liquidated damages in the case that a party has intentionally committed breaches.

In all, while we are aware that the waiver clause may not be recognized by courts, we, as lawyers, still think it still has benefits on the part of the non-breaching party to insert such delicately written waiver clause in a contract in terms of contract performance and of related dispute resolution.
编辑:田杰
田杰——上海律师,专业从事外商投资、房地产和劳动等业务;
Jason Tian, a Chinese lawyer based in Shanghai, your business partner in China;
Tel: +86-13816548421, Email: doroto@163.com
  • 上一篇文章:

  • 下一篇文章:
  •  

    律师加盟 | 广告合作 | 网站地图 | 友情链接 | 合作伙伴 | 诚聘英才 | 法律声明 | 意见建议 | 联系我们

    声明:本站为公益性网站,非上海律协官方网站,欢迎更多上海律师加盟合作
    上海法律网版权所有 2005-2009© Copyright By SH148.ORG, All rights reserved.
    信息产业部备案号:沪ICP备05003575号