圖書序言
三、工程契約之責任限制條款所限制之損害項目與民法規定之「損害」應如何對應之問題?
依民法第216條之規定:「損害賠償,除法律另有規定或契約另有訂定外,應以填補債權人所受損害及所失利益為限(第1項)。依通常情形或依已定之計劃、設備或其他特別情事,可得預期之利益,視為所失利益(第2項)。」可知,民法損害賠償之範圍包括「所受損害」及「所失利益」。而所謂「所受損害」,係指現存財產因損害原因事實之發生而被減少,屬於積極的損害,至「所失利益」則係指新財產之取得因損害原因事實之發生而受妨害,屬於消極的損害20。
然於工程契約中有關損害賠償請求之約定,通常係援用英美法下之損害賠償觀念及用語,例如FIDIC紅皮書第17.6節:「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.」、臺灣電力公司所簽訂某採購安裝合約之責任限制條款:「...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.」,其中所謂「衍生性損害」(consequential damage),依Black's Law Dictionary之定義,其係指非直接因行為人之行為所致之損害(Loss that do not flow directly and immediately from an injurious act, but that result indirectly from the act.)21。因此,關於民法所認定之損害賠償範圍,是否包括英美法判決先例所提出之衍生性損害賠償,即發生不少爭議22。