| 英文摘要 |
The foreseeability rule, established in Article 584 of China’s Civil Code, has been dead letter in practice, and its core has been replaced by the certainty rule. However, the certainty rule is not only contrary to the origin intent of the article, but also susceptible to a variety of uncertainties, which in turn increases the uncertainty of the rule. In view of this, the interpretation of the foreseeability rule should return to the intent of the article to seek an answer. At present, the interpretation of Article 584 of the Civil Code by mainland Chinese scholars is roughly the same as that of Article 416 of the Japanese Civil Code. In the Japanese academic circle, there are still many controversies in the academic and practical fields, albiet with a common interpretation. In the recent revision of the Japanese Law of Obligations, there were heated debates on Article 416 where no consensus could be reached among the parties, and only minor textual amendments were made in the end. The amendment is intended to clarify that the basis of Article 416 is the foreseeability rule, and follow the judgment framework of previous cases in practice on the premise of distinguishing between general and special damages. By analysing the experience in Japan, it can be seen that the direction of the interpretation of Article 584 of China’s Civil Code is to clarify the scope of damages for each type of typical contract on the basis of distinguishing the contract’s characteristics. |
