损害赔偿：合同明示条文优于法律原则的案例

在英国法下，违约损失赔偿，尤其是在一个有效的市场下，一般遵循的原则就是，差价损失赔偿。就是合约价与违约时市场价的差额，如果没有差额，那就只赔偿名义损失（实际相当于不赔偿）。当然，守约方在此有一个义务，就是减少损失的义务，否则扩大的损失违约方不赔。

以上就是法律的一般赔偿原则，但是如果合约对损失赔偿的计算有约定，且不违反法律等情况，那么可以超越法律的原则，损失计算以合约为准。

本文以 BUNGE SA v  NIDERA BV 案例为例，说明明示条文超越法律原则的情况。

案情简介：

买卖双方签署合同，买方购买一批小麦，签署合约后，卖方毁约解除合约，同时卖方再次以原先合约的相同条款向买方发出邀约，遭到买方拒绝，后买方申请仲裁，确认卖方毁约，并按照合约约定赔偿损失。卖方争论到，按照法律原则，在有效市场下，买方没有差价损失，因为卖方随后以相同的条款向买方发出要约，买方拒绝，买方没有履行减少损失的义务，对此扩大的损失卖方不赔。最后仲裁请支持了买方的请求。本案中关于损失赔偿争论的焦点就在于合同中的违约赔偿条款是否可以超越法律的一般原则，仲裁庭认为可以超越。

合约中的违约赔偿条款如下：

In default of fulfilment of contract by either party ,the following provisons shall apply:

    (a)the party other than the defaulter shall,at their discretion have the right,after serving notice on the defaulter,to sell or purchase ,as the case may be ,against the de faulter,and such sale or purchase shall establish the default price.

(b)if either party be dissatisfied with such default price or if the right at(a) is not exercised and damages cannot be mutually agreed ,then the assessment of damages shall be settled by the arbitration.

(c) the damages payable shall be based on .but not limited to ,the difference between the contract price and either the default price established under (a) above or the actual or estimated value of the goods on the date of default established under (b) above

(d)in all cases the damages shall ,in addition,include any proven additional expenses which would directly and naturally result in the ordinary course of enents from the defaulters breach of contract ,but shall in no case include loss of profit on any sub-contracts made by the party defaulted anainst or other unless the arbitrators of board of appeal ,having regard to special circumstances,shall in his/their sole and absolute discretion think fit.

(e) damages ,if any shall be computed on the quantity called for,but if no such quantity has been declard then on the mean contract quantity and any option available to either party shall be deemed to have been exercised accordingly in favour of the mean contract quantity.

仲裁庭的对上述条纹的评论：上述违约赔偿条文，非常容易理解，广泛的应用于贸易中。买方着中强调的是一种确定性，上述条文是能够满足这种确定性的。虽然与法律原则规定的损失赔偿方式不同，但是这种不同应被允许， 故此本案不能适用一般损失赔偿的法律原则。

综上，在国际贸易中，尤其是在适用英国法的情况下，需要明确的一点，在商事领域实行的是高度的意思自治，只要约定的清楚、充分，是可以排除法律的适用的。