交易获利机会损失的侵权损害赔偿

法经济学的一种通行观点认为,交易获利机会的损失在相当大的程度上并非"真实社会成本",而仅仅是不同市场主体之间的转移支付,因此原则上否定此种交易获利机会赔偿的侵权法规则具有合理性。提出该观点的早期文献系统性低估了交易获利机会损失事件引发的"真实社会成本"。实际上,如果坚持使用"真实社会成本"概念对侵权法规则进行分析,最终甚至会导致对物之损害赔偿的传统规则的正当性也发生疑问。适宜的作法是放弃"真实社会成本"概念而代之以"相对社会成本"概念,原则上将成本——收益分析限定于加害人与被害人之间的关系。按照此种思路,除第三人提供交易机会所导致的或具有合同法救济渠道的交易获利机会损失需要特殊处理外,并无效率方面的原则性理由支持侵权法一般性地排除交易获利机会损失的可赔性。

Tort Law Compensation for the Loss of Chance of Transactions Profit

According to a popular theory of law and economics,the chance to profit from a transaction is,to a great degree,not "real social cost" but only "transfer payment" between market participators;therefore,the tort law rule denying the actionability of loss of such chance is considered reasonable.This article,on the contrary,argues that the early literature putting forward this theory systematically underestimated the "real social cost" a loss of profiting chance may incur.In fact,the soundness of the compensating-damage-of-things rule will itself be in peril if we persist in using the concept "real social cost" in tort law analysis.A more feasible alternative,this article suggests,is to substitute "relative social cost" for "real social cost",thereby confining cost-benefit analysis within the relations between actor and victim.Following this approach,there’s no decisive efficiency argument supporting a general exclusion of tort remedies to the loss of profiting chance,except that such a loss ensues from an offer by a third party or has contractual remedies.