摘要
在可得利益损害赔偿问题上,我国司法实践多采“确定性”标准,常以“可得利益不具有确定性”为由,否定原告的损害赔偿请求权。换言之,可得利益损害应当被证明到具有相当的确定性,原告的请求才能得到支持。此种证据法、程序法上的要求,与实体法上的因果关系、可预见性规则等迥然有别。不过,确定性规则在我国欠缺实定法依据,应予放弃;应回归定有明文的优势证据规则,进而放宽可得利益损失的证明标准。证明标准规则并非以三段论的方式适用,多种实质性的因素共同支配着法院对原告举证是否达到证明标准的判断。若可得利益损害的数额就其性质而言本就难以证明,则在确认损害事实已发生且原告已穷尽举证手段时,应赋予法官酌定一定数额赔偿的裁量权。
In its judicial practice concerning the issue of compensation for lost profits,China often adopts the"certainty"standard,commonly rejecting the plaintiff's right to compensation on the basis that the lost profits lack certainty.In other words,the damage to potential benefits must be proven to a considerable degree of certainty for the plaintiff's claim to be supported.This requirement in evidence and procedural law is distinctly different from the rules of causation and foreseeability in substantive law.However,the certainty rule lacks a basis in statutory law in China and should be abandoned in favor of returning to the clearly stipulated preponderance of evidence,thereby relaxing the proof standard for loss of lost profits.The application of the proof standard rule is not a matter of syllogism;a variety of substantive factors together govern the court's judgment on whether the plaintiff's evidence meets the proof standard.If the amount of damage to lost profits is inherently difficult to prove,then the judge should be given the discretion to determine the amount of compensation when the fact of damage is confirmed and the plaintiff has exhausted all means of proof.
出处
《中外法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2024年第3期821-839,共19页
Peking University Law Journal
作者简介
严立,对外经济贸易大学法学院博士后。
