专业团队

需要注意的是，合同法实行的是严格责任原则而不是绝对的无过错责任原则。一般认为，两者之间的区别在于，适用严格责任归责原则赋予违约人以法定免责的事由，而绝对的无过错责任则没有免责事由。事实上，绝对的无过错责任是不存在的，包括产品责任和高度危险作业致人损害的赔偿责任。那么，审判实践中，在严格责任原则下的违约责任免责事由如何确定呢？我们认为，在这里要注意同民法上的特殊侵权无过错责任的免责事由区别开来：特殊侵权无过错责任的法定免责事由有不可抗力、意外事件和第三人过错；而对于违约责任，依据合同法第117条，仅有不可抗力，意外事件没有被确认为法定免责事由，第三人过错，依据合同法第121条，更是被明确排除在免责事由之外，这是合同相对性原则最一般的要求。　　 对于不可抗力，有的观点认为，仅在合同中笼统规定适用不可抗力条款或者重复不可抗力法律条文，都不能使不可抗力条款产生应有的作用，必须在合同中列举具体的不可抗力情形。只有列举出的情形发生，才能产生免责的法律效果。有观点则认为，设定不可抗力条款应采取概括的形式，以免挂一漏万。我们认为，在审判实践中，根据契约自由或意思自治原则，列举了免责事由的，应该首先确认其效力，只要免责事由条款没有违反法律、损害公共利益、违背公共政策和社会公德；对于仅概括规定或重复法律条文甚至根本就未涉及免责问题的，要根据事实认定是否属不可抗力情形。不可抗力作为法定的免责事由，具有特定的外延和内涵，不同于约定的免责事由。只有不能预见、无法避免并不能克服的客观情况，才能认定为不可抗力。对于不可抗力，我们应该从严把握。意外事件性质名为“意外”，实质属于正常的商业风险，是不能免责的。如承运人在运输中的碰撞事故、承揽人在加工中的机器毁损，等等，在合同订立时已为双方考虑或者应该考虑到。从国外的情况看，不可抗力的确定是很复杂的问题，通常由立法者赋予法官自由裁量权解决。如罢工，必须区别不同情况，不能一概地认为罢工就是不可抗力。仅仅违约方一家劳工罢工，应不足以认定是不可抗力；如整个城市或地区的大范围的罢工，就成为了一场社会事变，应该认定为不可抗力。学理上一般认为，不可抗力包括三种，一是自然灾害；二是政府行为（合同订立后的政府行为如法律变化、行政措施等，为民事行为人在订立合同时无法预见、不可避免和不可克服，因为订立合同的基础是原有的法律体系）；三是社会异常事件，如大范围的罢工、骚乱。该分类可以作为司法适用的参考。　　 合同法第118条规定：“当事人一方因不可抗力不能履行合同的，应当及时通知对方，以减轻可能给对方造成的损失，并应当在合理期限内提供证明。”实务中如果当事人没有及时通知对方，应承担何种责任？有意见认为，这里规定的当事人的通知义务，属基于诚实信用原则产生的合同附随义务。发生不可抗力，造成合同不能履行时，债务人可以免责，主要是免除合同约定的给付义务。根据诚实信用原则，双方当事人都有义务努力消除不可抗力事件的影响，减少损失。因此，合同法规定发生不可抗力造成合同不能履行时，当事人有通知对方当事人的义务，以最大限度减少对方当事人的损失。如果违反该义务，给对方当事人造成损失，则应承担赔偿损失的责任。我们认为，这里的通知义务属“不真正的义务”，即法律对义务人没有强制的权力，义务人可以选择通知或不通知。只是，在通知了的情况下，对方当事人就有减少损失的义务，如果对方当事人面对这种不可抗力的事件而没有采取适当措施以减少损失，那么，义务人就获得了免除赔偿这部分损失的权利。在没有通知的情况下，他就无权免除这部分损失的赔偿责任。在这种情况下，没有诚实信用原则的适用余地。但是，当对方当事人没有被通知而又知道或应当知道不可抗力发生时，他也可获得免除赔偿这部分损失的权利，这时才适用诚实信用原则，并且是对对方当事人而言。

It should be noted that the Contract Law implements the principle of strict liability rather than the absolute principle of no fault liability. It is generally believed that the difference between the two lies in the application of the principle of strict liability attribution, which grants the defaulting party legal grounds for exemption, while absolute fault free liability does not have grounds for exemption. In fact, absolute no fault liability does not exist, including product liability and compensation liability for damages caused by highly dangerous operations. So, in judicial practice, how to determine the grounds for exemption from breach of contract liability under the principle of strict liability? We believe that attention should be paid here to distinguishing it from the exemption grounds for special tort liability in civil law: the statutory exemption grounds for special tort liability include force majeure, accidents, and third-party fault; For breach of contract liability, according to Article 117 of the Contract Law, only force majeure, unexpected events that have not been recognized as statutory grounds for exemption, and third-party fault are clearly excluded from the grounds for exemption according to Article 121 of the Contract Law. This is the most general requirement of the principle of relativity of contract. For force majeure, some views believe that simply stating the application of force majeure clauses or repeating force majeure legal provisions in the contract cannot give the force majeure clause its due effect, and specific force majeure situations must be listed in the contract. Only when the listed circumstances occur can the legal effect of exemption be generated. Some argue that force majeure clauses should be established in a general form to avoid unnecessary omissions. We believe that in judicial practice, if exemption clauses are listed based on the principles of contractual freedom or autonomy of will, their effectiveness should be confirmed first, as long as they do not violate the law, harm public interests, violate public policies and social morality; For those who only summarize regulations, repeat legal provisions, or even do not involve exemption issues at all, it is necessary to determine whether they belong to force majeure situations based on facts. Force majeure, as a statutory exemption, has a specific extension and connotation, which is different from the agreed exemption. Only unforeseeable, unavoidable, and insurmountable objective circumstances can be recognized as force majeure. We should strictly control force majeure. The nature of an unexpected event is called "accident", which essentially belongs to normal commercial risks and cannot be exempted from liability. Such as collision accidents during transportation by the carrier, damage to machinery by the contractor during processing, etc., which have already been or should have been taken into consideration by both parties at the time of contract formation. From the perspective of foreign situations, the determination of force majeure is a complex issue, usually resolved by legislators granting judges discretionary power. If there is a strike, different situations must be distinguished, and it cannot be simply considered as force majeure. Just one labor strike by the defaulting party should not be considered force majeure; A large-scale strike in an entire city or region has become a social event and should be recognized as force majeure. In theory, it is generally believed that force majeure includes three types: natural disasters; The second is government actions (government actions such as legal changes, administrative measures, etc. after the contract is concluded, which are unforeseeable, unavoidable, and insurmountable by civil actors at the time of contract formation, because the basis of contract formation is the original legal system); The third is social abnormal events, such as large-scale strikes and riots. This classification can serve as a reference for judicial application. Article 118 of the Contract Law stipulates: "If one party is unable to perform the contract due to force majeure, it shall notify the other party in a timely manner to reduce the losses that may be caused to the other party, and shall provide proof within a reasonable period." In practice, if a party fails to notify the other party in a timely manner, what responsibilities should they bear? Some opinions believe that the notification obligation of the parties stipulated here is a contractual ancillary obligation based on the principle of good faith. When force majeure occurs, resulting in the inability to perform the contract, the debtor can be exempted from liability, mainly by exempting the payment obligation stipulated in the contract. According to the principle of good faith, both parties have an obligation to strive to eliminate the impact of force majeure events and reduce losses. Therefore, the Contract Law stipulates that when force majeure occurs and the contract cannot be performed, the parties have the obligation to notify the other party in order to minimize the losses of the other party. If the breach of this obligation causes losses to the other party, they shall bear the responsibility of compensating for the losses. We believe that the notification obligation here is an "unreal obligation", that is, the law has no coercive power over the obligor, and the obligor can choose to notify or not notify. However, in the event of notification, the other party has an obligation to reduce losses. If the other party fails to take appropriate measures to reduce losses in the face of such force majeure events, then the obligor has the right to be exempted from compensating for this part of the losses. Without notice, he has no right to waive the liability for compensation for this part of the loss. In this situation, there is no room for the application of the principle of good faith. However, when the other party is not notified but knows or should have known of the occurrence of force majeure, they also have the right to be exempted from compensating for this part of the loss. Only then can the principle of good faith be applied, and it is for the other party.