{"title":"合同中的撤销和“许可费损害赔偿”","authors":"Peter Jaffey","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3801185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The recent English Court of Appeal case of Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises Ltd is the latest to consider the law concerning the liability of a contracting party in respect of the profits of a breach of contract, following the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney-General v Blake. The issue is of practical importance and theoretical interest. In this note I will outline what I argue is the best interpretation of Blake and its theoretical basis, and consider its implications for Hendrix. I will deal first with the claim for all the profits of a breach, and then with the lesser claim for some fraction of the defendant’s benefit, conceived of as a sort of deemed licence fee or quid pro quo for breach. The former was described in Blake and Hendrix as an “account of profits”, but I will refer to it as “disgorgement”. The latter I will refer to as “licence fee damages”. I will argue that these are distinct types of claim, although in Blake and Hendrix they were regarded as variants of a single type of claim.","PeriodicalId":404809,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Rights & Remedies (Private Law - Contracts) (Topic)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disgorgement and 'Licence Fee Damages' in Contract\",\"authors\":\"Peter Jaffey\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3801185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction The recent English Court of Appeal case of Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises Ltd is the latest to consider the law concerning the liability of a contracting party in respect of the profits of a breach of contract, following the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney-General v Blake. The issue is of practical importance and theoretical interest. In this note I will outline what I argue is the best interpretation of Blake and its theoretical basis, and consider its implications for Hendrix. I will deal first with the claim for all the profits of a breach, and then with the lesser claim for some fraction of the defendant’s benefit, conceived of as a sort of deemed licence fee or quid pro quo for breach. The former was described in Blake and Hendrix as an “account of profits”, but I will refer to it as “disgorgement”. The latter I will refer to as “licence fee damages”. I will argue that these are distinct types of claim, although in Blake and Hendrix they were regarded as variants of a single type of claim.\",\"PeriodicalId\":404809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Rights & Remedies (Private Law - Contracts) (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Rights & Remedies (Private Law - Contracts) (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3801185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Rights & Remedies (Private Law - Contracts) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3801185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
最近英国上诉法院审理的Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises Ltd案是继上议院在总检察长诉布莱克案中作出决定之后,考虑缔约一方对违约利润的责任法律的最新案件。这个问题具有重要的现实意义和理论意义。在这篇文章中,我将概述我认为对布莱克的最佳解释及其理论基础,并考虑其对亨德里克斯的影响。我将首先处理对违约行为的全部利润的索赔,然后是对被告利益的一部分的次要索赔,被认为是一种视同的许可费或违约的交换条件。前者在布莱克和亨德里克斯的著作中被描述为“利润账户”,但我将称之为“分赃”。我将后者称为“许可费损害”。我认为这些是不同类型的主张,尽管在布莱克和亨德里克斯那里它们被看作是同一种主张的变体。
Disgorgement and 'Licence Fee Damages' in Contract
Introduction The recent English Court of Appeal case of Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises Ltd is the latest to consider the law concerning the liability of a contracting party in respect of the profits of a breach of contract, following the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney-General v Blake. The issue is of practical importance and theoretical interest. In this note I will outline what I argue is the best interpretation of Blake and its theoretical basis, and consider its implications for Hendrix. I will deal first with the claim for all the profits of a breach, and then with the lesser claim for some fraction of the defendant’s benefit, conceived of as a sort of deemed licence fee or quid pro quo for breach. The former was described in Blake and Hendrix as an “account of profits”, but I will refer to it as “disgorgement”. The latter I will refer to as “licence fee damages”. I will argue that these are distinct types of claim, although in Blake and Hendrix they were regarded as variants of a single type of claim.