論作為違約救濟的獲利交出

為預防與阻卻違約獲利行為，獲利交出救濟在理論上應運而生。不過，既有研究認為應適用獲利交出救濟的案型，均無需亦不應由此救濟處理。一物二賣與節約履行的案型，由常規損害賠償救濟即可解決。對於守約方似無損失或損失難以計算的案型，則可由協商性損害賠償處理。既有學說對獲利交出救濟的正當性依據、適用範圍以及守約方保有得利之原因的論證都有缺陷。獲利交出救濟僅應適用於規則套利型違約。此類違約行為不僅損害交易穩定性，亦具有增加交易成本、減少交易的外部性而需予以預防。違約使用、履行欺詐、利用限制賠償規則、實際履行排除規則、違約金調整規則牟利，均屬於此類違約的典型情形。

In order to prevent breach of contract for profit, many scholars advocated the remedy of disgorgement. Existing studies believe that the case types that should be applied to the disgorgement do not need and should not be dealt with by this remedy. The case of one thing for two sales and skimped performance can be solved by conventional damage compensation. For cases in which the non-breaching party seems to suffer no loss or the loss is difficult to calculate, it can be handled by negotiating damages. Existing theories can not justify disgorgement remedy. Disgorgement shall only apply to rule arbitrage breach. Such breach of contract not only damages transaction stability, but also increases transaction costs and reduces transaction externalities, which need to be prevented. Unauthorized use, fraud in performance, the use of limited compensation rules, specific performance exclusion rules and liquidated damage adjustment rules for profit are typical cases of such breach.