图书序言
三、工程契约之责任限制条款所限制之损害项目与民法规定之「损害」应如何对应之问题?
依民法第216条之规定:「损害赔偿,除法律另有规定或契约另有订定外,应以填补债权人所受损害及所失利益为限(第1项)。依通常情形或依已定之计划、设备或其他特别情事,可得预期之利益,视为所失利益(第2项)。」可知,民法损害赔偿之范围包括「所受损害」及「所失利益」。而所谓「所受损害」,系指现存财产因损害原因事实之发生而被减少,属于积极的损害,至「所失利益」则系指新财产之取得因损害原因事实之发生而受妨害,属于消极的损害20。
然于工程契约中有关损害赔偿请求之约定,通常系援用英美法下之损害赔偿观念及用语,例如FIDIC红皮书第17.6节:「Neither party shall be liable to the other party for loss of use of any Works, loss of profit, loss of any contract or for any indirect or consequential loss or damage which may be suffered by the other Party in connection with the Contract.」、台湾电力公司所签订某採购安装合约之责任限制条款:「...the Seller shall not be liable to TPC for any consequential damages, including loss of use or product, loss of profit or revenues, cost of capital or loss of replacement power, etc. nor shall theaggregate liability of the Seller to TPC under the Contract exceed the total Contract price as finally adjusted under the Contract.」,其中所谓「衍生性损害」(consequential damage),依Black's Law Dictionary之定义,其系指非直接因行为人之行为所致之损害(Loss that do not flow directly and immediately from an injurious act, but that result indirectly from the act.)21。因此,关于民法所认定之损害赔偿范围,是否包括英美法判决先例所提出之衍生性损害赔偿,即发生不少争议22。