Liquidated Damages and Penalty Clauses: A Civil Law versus Common Law Comparison
Tóm tắt bài của ReedSmith và share vài bài theo luật Việt Nam
ReedSmith có bài với tựa đề như trên. Bài viết ngắn gọn và rõ ràng, dưới đây là mấy điểm chính. Sau đó là nguồn dẫn đến bài viết về liquidated damages của một số tác giả Việt Nam.
Mỹ
In the United States, a liquidated damage clause is intended to estimate damages in the event of non-performance or breach of contract. A liquidated damages clause will be enforced where the court finds that the harm caused by the breach is difficult to estimate, but where the amount of liquidated damages is reasonable compensation and not disproportionate to the actual or anticipated damage. The intent of liquidated damages is simply to measure damages that are hard to prove once incurred. If the liquidated damages are disproportionate, they can, however, be declared a penalty. The clause is then void, and recovery will be limited to the actual damage that results from the breach.
Hai yếu tố (elements)
The treatment of liquidated damage clauses varies slightly among different jurisdictions within the United States, but generally the courts consider two elements to determine whether a liquidated damage clause is enforceable. The first is the uncertainty element; whether the harm caused by the breach is difficult to calculate. The second element is whether the amount of the liquidated damages is reasonable in proportion to the actual or anticipated harm. If it is not, then it is a penalty, which is against public policy, and therefore the clause is unenforceable. (Emphasis added).
Other common law jurisdictions
Most other common law countries such as England, Australia, Ireland and Canada have similar rules with regard to liquidated damages, and do not allow for liquidated damages that are used as a penalty. One exception to the rule is India, where the Contracts Act makes no distinction between liquidated damages and penalties, and allows for contractual damages for failure to perform even if the intention is to penalize. (Internal citations omitted).
CISG
The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”), which has generally been an important tool in developing a more uniform international sales law, regulates neither liquidated damages nor penalty clauses. In fact, the framers of the CISG agreed to leave these clauses out of the convention, in favor of regulation by domestic law, because of widely divergent approaches in different legal systems. The enforceability of liquidated damage and penalty clauses thereby depends on domestic law. (Internal citations omitted).
UNICITRAL
In the UNICITRAL uniform rules relating to liquidated damages and penalty clauses, this problem has been solved by simply referring to both as “contract clauses for an agreed sum due upon failure of performance.” According to the UNICITRAL rules, an agreement between parties of a contract to pay a certain sum in the event of non-performance is generally allowed, whether as a penalty or compensation. However, the amount can be reduced by the courts if it is “substantially disproportionate to the actual loss.” (Internal citations omitted).
Civil law approach
In civil law countries, the attitude toward contractual penalties is quite different from the common law approach. The Napoleonic Code, upon which most civil codes are based, allowed for penalties to encourage performance of contractual obligations. (This is the precise rationale that is rejected in the United States.) In recent years, however, there has been a widespread trend in civil law countries toward narrowing the scope of such penalties, and allowing courts to reduce the amount if they find it excessive.
Traditionally, in civil code countries, no distinction was made between liquidated damages clauses and penalty clauses. Recently, a more common approach seems to distinguish between liquidated damages clauses that are used to estimate damages in case of non-performance, based on the concept that there has been an actual harm to the plaintiff, and penalty clauses that are used to establish a penalty to be paid in case of non-performance with the intent to encourage performance. The latter does not require proof of any real damage.
Penalty clauses in civil law jurisdictions can be described as the kind of liquidated damages that would not be enforceable in the United States because of public policy prohibiting liquidated damages designed to punish the nonperformer. Although penalty clauses have been generally enforceable in civil law countries, they can now be mitigated by the court in most jurisdictions. (Internal citations omitted).
Có một nghiên cứu mới hơn về vấn đề này là Legal Perspective on Treatment of Delay Liquidated Damages and Penalty Clauses by Different Jurisdictions: Comparative Analysis nhưng phải trả tiền mới đọc được.
Còn theo luật của Việt Nam ta thì có thể đọc bài khá lâu rồi của Allens, của DFDL “Validity of liquidated damages clause under Vietnam’s Law”, mới hơn là “Enforceability of agreement on liquidated damages under Vietnamese law” của Venture North Law. Ai có thêm bài cùng chủ đề này có thể share link trong comment.
Cập nhật: (bài đăng trên cùng là bài mới nhất Ngữ đọc được)
GIÁ TRỊ PHÁP LÝ của thỏa thuận bồi thường thiệt hại ước tính theo pháp luật Việt Nam (LS Phan Văn Thanh)
Bài “Hiệu lực của thỏa thuận bồi thường thiệt hại ước tính” của LS Trương Nhật Quang ở đây.
Slides về chủ đề này của Ls Lê Bá Thành Chung (CLVN) ở đây và ở đây.
(Ls Đặng Xuân Hợp và Ls Chung dịch “liquidated damages” là “bồi thường định trước” rất gọn.)