/ 前期内容回顾/

 

在违约行为发生，如果合同存在可实施的违约金条款（liquidated damages provision），那么未违约方会获得约定的违约金；但是如果未违约方并未蒙受实际损失，法院会裁定小额的象征性损害赔偿金（nominal damages），以宣示未违约方诉权的存在。

 

在违约行为发生而未违约方所蒙受的实际损失不能确定时，违约方也应当予以合理的赔偿。在这种情况下，法院会救济未违约方期待利益(expectation interest)、信赖利益(reliance interest)或返还利益(restitution interest)。

本期主要介绍返还利益

及其赔偿金的计算方法。

 

 

    返还利益，是指原告基于对被告允诺的信任而给付，但因被告违约所应向原告返还的利益。返还利益旨在防止违约不当得利（prevention of unjust enrichment）的产生。

    

    合同中返还利益请求的产生，是由于被告因违约而受益（unfairly receiving benefits），因此他应该就此种利益向原告作出给付。返还利益不是请求执行合同，而是就基于合同给付发生的不当得利而请求返还。

在适用返还利益的案件中，美国合同法也纳入买方违约的情况。例如，在 Kutzin v. Pirnie（文末附该案的case brief）一案中,Pirnie夫妇(买方)通过中介向Kutzin夫妇（卖方）购买住房，双方签订了购房合同，但合同中并未约定违约金和预付款收回条款。买方在预付部分房款后反悔，拒绝完成交易，双方就买方是否能取回预付款产生争议。

 

在这类房产交易中，普通法的传统规则是：如果房产买方在缴纳部分房款后，因自己原因而无法完成交易，卖方有权取得该预交的房款，此时不适用返还利益标准，因为买方违约在先，买方不能因自己的违约行为受益。但该案法院（the Supreme Court of New Jersey）却认为，如果允许卖方保留全部预付款（即买方部分履行义务），无异是在惩罚买方的违约行为，而不是在对所造成的损害进行补偿，有违合同法精神，卖方也会获得不正当利益。

 

所以现代普通法认为，即使买方违约，买方也可以获得超过卖方实际损失的那部分预付款作为返还利益赔偿金（buyer can recover the portion of the deposit that's above the loss actually suffered by the seller in restitution），即买方的预付款-卖方的实际损失。

 

下面通过具体的例子帮助大家理解返还利益赔偿金的计算。

1. Jack（买方）同意以5万美元的价格购买Larry（卖方）的土地。在Jack支付了1万美元的预付款后，Larry违反了合同，拒绝出让土地。Jack有权要求返还他的1万美元。

 

2. 同样在这个例子中，如果Jack（买方）已经支付了5万美元（全款），而Larry（卖方）拒绝放弃土地。在这种情况下，Larry返还给Jack的不是 5万美元，而是合约中的土地。

 

3. 在这个例子中，如果是Jack（买方）违约，在支付1万美元的预付款后拒绝支付额外的款项。如果Larry（卖方）没有因买方的违约而遭受损失，Jack可以要求退还他的1万美元，即使他是违反协议的一方；但是如果Larry遭受了实际损失，Jack仍可以获得赔偿，Jack可以获得的返还利益赔偿金是：Jack的预付款（1万美元）-Larry受到的实际损失。

 

 

Case Brief

Kutzin v. Pirnie

New Jersey Supreme Court

591 A.2d 932 (1991)

 

Rule of Law

In the absence of a written clause providing otherwise, a seller of real estate is not entitled to retain the deposit paid when the buyer breaches the contract of sale.

 

Facts

The Kutzins (plaintiffs) entered into a contract to sell a house to the Pirnies (defendants) for $365,000. The Pirnies provided a down payment of $36,000. Later, they breached the contract and refused to go through with the sale. The contract contained no clause regarding liquidated damages or forfeiture of the deposit. The Kutzins eventually sold the house six months later. The Kutzins sued the Pirnies for damages resulting from the breach. The trial court entered judgment for the Kutzins and fixed the amount of damages at $17,325, which included factors such as the difference in between the original and actual selling prices, and utilities, taxes and insurance incurred during the period of time between the planned sale and the actual sale. The trial court ordered the Kutzins to return $18,675 to the Pirnies, representing the difference between the deposit paid and the actual damages sustained as a result of the breach. The Kutzins appealed, and the Appellate Division held that, because the amount of the damages was determined to be less than the deposit, the Kutzins were permitted to retain the entire deposit, but not more, as damages. The Pirnies appealed.

 

Issue

May a seller of real estate keep the deposit when the buyer breaches the contract and the contract of sale does not include a liquidated damages or forfeiture clause?

 

Holding and Reasoning (Clifford, J.)

No. The common law rule, which had previously been recognized in New Jersey, was that a breaching buyer of property who had paid a deposit may not recover the payment, even if the seller received a profit as a result. In Oliver v. Lawson, 48 NJ 574 (1967), the Supreme Court of New Jersey allowed the seller to keep the entire $20,000 deposit on the sale of a $215,000 home which was later sold without substantial loss, holding that the buyer had not provided enough proof that the seller was unjustly enriched. However, the trend is moving away from the harsh rule toward a rule that the buyer is entitled to restitution of sums paid which are over and above the loss actually suffered by the seller. This new rule is superior because it compensates the seller properly while avoiding a forfeiture, which is disfavored in the law. Here, the trial court affixed an amount as damages flowing from the breach; to the extent that the Kutzins had already received money from the Pirnies that exceeded that sum, the Pirnies were entitled to a refund of the excess. The court stresses that this holding applies only to those sales contracts that do not contain a liquidated damages or forfeiture clause, though it also notes that if a clause to that effect results in a penalty that is outrageous, enforcing that clause may also be a problem. The Pirnies are entitled to restitution in the amount of the difference between their payment and the damages suffered. To permit the Kutzins to retain the entire amount of the deposit would result in an unjust enrichment to them. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

 

 

(文章来源：法平教育)