摘 要
違約責任的補償性作為民法中平等原則的1個體現在我們社會業已深入人心。隨著經濟的發展，社會關係的.複雜，補償性違約責任顯現出了自身的不足，如對惡意磋商等不法行為造成守約方的間接損失、精神損失無法進行彌補以及無法對這些不法行為進行遏制；受害者因很難查清實際損失，或損失難以證明而無法得到法律救濟。這就需要匯入懲罰性賠償來制裁和遏制不法行為的發生，彌補1般補償性違約責任不能彌補的損失。當然也有人持反對意見，認為它與傳統民法理念衝突且會帶來許多不利的影響。但筆者認為匯入懲罰性賠償制度是1種需要，也是1種趨勢。不過我們需要對其進行1定的限制，克服懲罰性賠償本身的侷限性，從而發揮其較好的作用。同時我們必須堅持違約責任的補償性為主要原則，懲罰性只能是補償性的補充，而絕不能是代替，這是匯入懲罰性賠償制度的前提。
關鍵詞: 違約責任；補償性； 懲罰性； 實證分析
Abstract
The compensability of obligation of breaching a contract considered as a reflection of equal principle in the civil law, and already has penetrated deeply into the heart of the people in our society. With the development of the economy and the complication of the society relations, the compensative obligation of breaching a contract appears own insufficiency. For examples: the indirect loss and the spiritual loss can’t be compensated, which caused by the illegal acts such as the vicious negotiation; the compensative obligation of breaching a contract is unable to restraint the illegal acts; the victims wouldn’t obtain the remedy of law because they are difficult to make the virtual loss clear, or to prove the loss existed. Thus we need to introduce the punitive damages into the contract law to eliminate these defections. Some hold opposite opinions that the punitive damages come into conflict with the traditional idea in the civil law and it would bring about many disadvantages to our country. But the author of this article insists that it should be a necessary and also a trend. Of course, we need to carry on certain limit to it so that plays it good role because of the limitations of the punitive damages itself. At the same time we must persist that the compensative obligation of breaching a contract is the main principle punitive damages only can be the supplement ,but cannot be replaces. This is a prerequisite to introduce the punitive damages.
Key word: Obligation of breaching a contract; Compensative; Punitive;
The real evidence analysis
..............................
注：【包括：畢業論文，任務書，開題報告】
