Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2018. Issue 3 (41)


V. A. Mikryukov, Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ORCID: 0000-0002-6856-1627
ResearcherID: F-2073-2017
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»:       DOI: 10.14505/jarle.v8.5(27).21
DOI: 10.14505/jarle.v8.3(25).29 
Requisites: Mikryukov V. A. Rossiyskiy analog anglo-amerikanskikh «liquidated damages»: perspektivy zakonodatel'nogo zakrepleniya [Russian Analogue of Anglo-American "Liquidated Damages": the Prospects for Legislative Recognition]. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta. Juridicheskie Nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2018.
Issue 41. Pp. 420–441. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2018-41-420-441
DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2018-41-420-441

Introduction: this article deals with the legal assessment of the prospects for legal recognition of the analogue of the Anglo-American “liquidated damages” structure in Russia. The study appears to be currently relevant as in Russia there is a high demand for the effective, efficient, and at the same time balanced mechanisms providing restoration of the property status of the parties to a contract affected by the counterparty’s failure. The absence of direct legislative solutions to the issue of liquidated damages, as well as doctrinal under-development of this institution in the Russian science brings up to date the search for the foreign counterparts for their possible situational use in the law enforcement practice or doctrinally justified rule-making. Purpose: to identify the advantages of the Anglo-American institution “liquidated damages” and assess its applicability in the Russian legal reality. Methods: the methodological framework of the research is based on general scientific (analysis and synthesis, abstraction and concretization) and special scientific research methods (comparative legal, formal and legal, technical and legal ones). The method of analogy was the starting scientific tool and the object of study at the same time. Results: the positive role of comparative legal and historical analogies in overcoming the lack of legal knowledge and gaps in the current legislation is proved. Specific theoretical and practical problems of the liquidated damages mechanism functioning in the conditions of the regulatory vacuum have been established. Significant obstacles for the direct analogue of the Anglo-American “liquidated damages” to be enshrined in the Russian civil law are indicated. Conclusions: the findings obtained, on the one hand, created the basis for defining an independent place of liquidated damages as a special kind of losses in the system of sanctions for breach of contractual obligations, and on the other hand, enabled us to formulate recommendations to refrain from hasty legislative recognition of such a measure in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since its effectiveness within the Russian legal system must first be verified and confirmed by many years of contractual and law enforcement practice.

Keywords: analogy; liquidated damages; agreed damages;forfeit; penalty; reimbursement; principle of good faith; contractual obligation; judicial controln
  download the full-version article
References: 1. Anurov V. N. Vozmeshchenie poter' v nefteser¬visnykh dogovorakh [Recovery of Losses in Oilfield Service Contracts]. Moscow, 2016. 232 p. (In Russ.).
2. Bogdanova E. E. Aktual'nye problemy vozme¬shcheniya ubytkov v dogovornykh obyazatel'¬stvakh [Topical Problems of Compensation of Losses in Contractual Obligations]. Grazhdanskoe Pravo – Civil Law. 2015. Issue 3. Pp. 6–9. (In Russ.).
3. Breig B., Moutaye I. M. Res publica i res mercatoria v proformakh FIDIK i GK RF [Res publica and res mercatoria in Forms of FIDIC and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of Economic Justice. 2016. Issue 1. Pp. 111–144. (In Russ.).
4. Varavenko V. E. Tipovye dogovory mezhduna¬rodnoy Federatsii inzhenerov-konsul'tantov (FIDIC): obshchee i osobennoe [International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC)'s Model Agreements: General and Particular]. Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe pravo – International Public and Private International Law. 2013. Issue 6. Pp. 23–26. (In Russ.).
5. Vasilevskaya L. Yu. Instituty inostrannogo prava v Grazhdanskom kodekse Rossiyskoy Federatsii: novoe regulirovanie – novye prob¬lemy [Institutions of Foreign Law in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: New Regulation – New Problems]. Sud'ya – Judge. 2016. Issue 10. Pp. 10–13. (In Russ.).
6. Grin' O. S. Osobennosti otvetstvennosti po obes¬pechitel'nym obyazatel'stvam [Peculiarities of Liability for Secured Obligations]. LEX RUS¬SICA. 2017. Issue 5. Pp. 46–58. DOI: 10.17
803/1729-5920.2017.126.5.046-058. (In Russ.).
7. Egorov A. Mesto zaranee otsenennykh ubytkov v sisteme chastnogo prava Rossii [The Place of Liquidated Damages in the Private Law System of Russia]. EZh-Yurist – Ekonomika i Zhizn – Laywer. 2018. Issue 09(1010). Available at: (ac¬cessed 10.04.2018). (In Russ.).
8. Dogovornoe pravo Rossii: reformirovanie, problemy i tendentsii razvitiya: monografiya; Bogdanova E. E., Vasilevskaya L. Yu., Grin' O. S. et al.; pod obshch. red. L. Yu. Vasilev-skoy [Contract Law of Russia: Reforming, Problems and Development Tendencies: Monograph; ed. by L. Yu. Vasilevskaya]. Moscow, 2016. 192 p. (In Russ.).
9. Ivanov A. A. Idei A. V. Venediktova i ikh otrazhenie v proekte izmeneniy Grazhdanskogo kodeksa RF [A. V. Venediktov's Ideas and their Reflection in Draft Amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Zakon – ZAKON. 2013. Issue 4. Pp. 77–82. (In Russ.).
10. Il'chenko T. Yu. Diffuziya prava: k voprosu o ponyatii [The Diffusion of Law: Questions about the Definition]. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya "Pravo" – Herald of Omsk University. Series "LAW". 2016. Issue 4(49). Pp. 42–50. (In Russ.).
11. Kaminskaya E. I. "Zaranee ischislennye ubyt¬ki" (Liquidated damages) v anglo-amerikan¬skom dogovornom prave ["Liquidated Dama¬ges" in the Anglo-American Contract Law]. Voprosy mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo, sravnitel'nogo i grazhdanskogo prava, mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazha: LIBER AMICORUM v chest' A. A. Kostina, O. N. Zi¬menkovoy, N. G. Eliseeva – Issues of International Private, Comparative and Civil Law, International Commercial Arbitration: LIBER AMICORUM in honor of A. A. Kostin, O. N. Zimenkova, N. G. Eliseev. Moscow, 2013. Pp. 191–207. (In Russ.).
12. Karapetov A. G. Kommentariy k stat'yam 330–333 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa RF o neustoyke v sfere posledney sudebnoy praktiki [Commen¬tary on Articles 330–333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on Forfeit in the Sphere of the Recent Judicial Practice]. Zashchita grazhdanskikh prav; pod red. M. A. Rozhkova [Protection of Civil Rights; ed. by M. A. Rozh¬kov]. Moscow, 2017. Pp. 177–201. (In Russ.).
13. Karapetov A. G. Modeli zashchity grazhdan-skikh prav: ekonomicheskiy vzglyad [Models of Civil Rights Protection: Economic Point of View]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of Economic Justice. 2014. Issue 11. Pp. 24–80; Issue 12. Pp. 24–73. (In Russ.).
14. Karkhalev D. N. Sposoby zashchity grazhdanskikh prav v SShA [Means of Protection of Civil Rights in the United States of America]. Notarius – Notary. 2016. Issue 4. Pp. 37–39. (In Russ.).
15. Karkhalev D.N. Sposoby zashchity grazhdanskikh prav po zakonodatel'stvu stran Vostochnoy Evropy [Civil Rights Protection Means under Legislations of Eastern European Countries]. Yurist – Jurist. 2017. Issue 19. Pp. 38–41. (In Russ.).
16. Kornev I., Arutyunyan V. Aktsionernoe sogla¬shenie: zaklyuchenie, soderzhanie i ispolnenie [Shareholder Agreement: Conclusion, Content and Execution]. Korporativnyy yurist – Corporate Lawyer. 2010. Issue 1. Pp. 32–37. (In Russ.).
17. Krassov O. I. Retseptsiya norm zarubezhnogo prava – metod razvitiya tsivilisticheskoy mysli [Reception of Norms of Foreign Law as a Method of Development of Civilist Thought]. Ekologicheskoe Pravo – Environmental Law. 2013. Issue 3. Pp. 34–41. (In Russ.).
18. Kuz'min A. I. Sootnoshenie korporativnogo i chastnogo interesa [Correlation of Corporate and Private Interest]. Yurist – Jurist. 2014. Issue 7. Pp. 32–36. (In Russ.).
19. Kulakov V. V. Norma stat'i 333 GK RF kak sredstvo dostizheniya razumnogo balansa inte¬resov uchastnikov obyazatel'stva [The Norm of Article 333 of the Civil Code as a Mean of Achieving a Reasonable Balance of the Parties Obligations]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, prak¬tika – Laws of Russia: Experience, Analysis, Practice. 2016. Issue 7. Pp. 17–22. (In Russ.).
20. Libanova S. E. Vozmeshchenie ubytkov: novyy vzglyad [Compensation of Losses: New Outlook]. Tsivilist – Civilist. 2009. Issue 1. Pp. 48–50. (In Russ.).
21. Libanova S. E. Problemy vozmeshcheniya ubytkov v sfere predprinimatel'stva i puti ikh resheniya [Problems of Compensation of Losses in the Sphere of Entrepreneurship and the Ways of Solving Them]. Zakonodatel'stvo i ekonomika – Legislation and Economics. 2010. Issue 2. Pp. 58–60. (In Russ.).
22. Litarenko N. V. Ispolnenie dogovornykh usloviy o neustoyke v stranakh Blizhnego Vostoka [Execution of Penalty Clause in the Middle East]. Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava – Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2017. Issue 4. Pp. 173–181. DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2017.
77.4.173-181. (In Russ.).
23. Malovitskiy R. S., Baryshev M. A. Sovmestnoe predpriyatie v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: pre¬imushchestva i nedostatki sozdaniya s tochki zreniya korporativnogo upravleniya [Joint Ven¬ture in the Russian Federation: Advantages and Disadvantages of Its Creation in Terms of Corporate Governance]. Vestnik Arbitrazhnogo suda Moskovskogo okruga – Herald of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District. 2016. Issue 2. Pp. 65–78. (In Russ.).
24. Milokhova A. V. Odnostoronniy otkaz ot ispol¬neniya dogovora vozmezdnogo okazaniya uslug: ego predely i usloviya realizatsii [Unilateral Refusal to Perform the Contract of Compensated Rendering Services: Its Limits and Impli¬cations]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika – Laws of Russia: Experience, Analysis, Practice. 2017. Issue 12. Pp. 53–58. (In Russ.).
25. Mozolin V. P., Farnsworth E. A. Dogovornoe pravo v SShA i SSSR. Istoriya i obshchie kontseptsii [Contract Law in the USA and the USSR. History and General Concepts]. Moscow, 1988. 308 p. (In Russ.).
26. Myskin A. V. O meste i roli yuridicheskikh obychaev v sovremennom rossiyskom grazh-danskom prave [On the Place and Role of Juridical Customs in Contemporary Russian Civil Law]. Yurist – Jurist. 2013. Issue 13. Pp. 31–35. (In Russ.).
27. Osakwe C. Svoboda dogovora v anglo-ameri¬kanskom prave: ponyatie, sushchnost' i ogranicheniya [Freedom of Contract in Anglo-Ame¬rican Law: Concept, Essence and Limi¬tations]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava – Journal of Russian Law. 2006. Issue 7. Pp. 85–94. (In Russ.).
28. Orobinskiy V. Evolyutsiya neustoyki: ot shtrafa k ZOU [Evolution of the Forfeit: from a Penalty to Liquidated Damages]. EZh-Yurist – Ekono¬mika i Zhizn – Lawyer. 2013. Issue 43. P. 12. (In Russ.).
29. Padiryakov A. V. Vzyskanie ubytkov i soglaso¬vannye sredstva pravovoy zashchity po pravu Anglii i RF [Recovery of Damages and Contractual Remedies under the Law of England and Russia]. Zakon – ZAKON. 2015. Issue 7. Pp. 175–190. (In Russ.).
30. Praslov Yu. P. O nekotorykh voprosakh otvetstvennosti za narushenie korporativnykh soglasheniy [On Certain Issues of Responsibility for Violation of Corporate Agreements].
Bezopasnost' biznesa – Business Security. 2013. Issue 1. Pp. 10–12. (In Russ.).
31. Raykher V. K. Pravovye voprosy dogovornoy distsipliny v SSSR [Legal Issues of Contractual Discipline in the USSR]. Leningrad, 1958. 265 p. (In Russ.).
32. Sadikov O. N. Ubytki v grazhdanskom prave Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Losses in Civil Law of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, 2009. 221 p. (In Russ.).
33. Sannikova L. V. Vozmeshchenie poter' v stra¬nakh obshchego prava i v Rossii [Indemnity in Common Law Countries and In Russia]. Vest¬nik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nau¬ki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2016. Issue 4. Pp. 440–450. DOI: 10.17072/
1995-4190-2016-34-440-450. (In Russ.).
34. Severin R. V. Sushchnost' ubytkov v informa¬tsionnoy sfere predpriyatiya [Essence of Losses in Information Sphere of an Enterprise]. Informatsionnoe pravo – Informational Law. 2013. Issue 1. Pp. 18–20. (In Russ.).
35. Sinitsyn S. A. Pravo suda na snizhenie vzyski¬vaemoy neustoyki: pravovaya priroda, usloviya i oblast' prakticheskogo primeneniya v sovre¬mennykh usloviyakh [The Right of the Court to Reduce a Penalty: Legal Nature, Conditions and Scope of Practical Application in Modern Conditions]. Advokat – Lawyer. 2015. Issue 4. Pp. 18–29. (In Russ.).
36. Stepanov D. I. Dedloki v nepublichnykh korporatsiyakh: vozmozhnye varianty razvitiya zakonodatel'stva i sudebnoy praktiki [Deadlocks in Private Corporations: a Call for Reform of Legislation and Case-Law]. Vestnik ekonomi¬cheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of Economic Justice. 2015. Issue 10. Pp. 62–115. (In Russ.).
37. Stepkin S. P. Grazhdansko-pravovoy institut aktsionernykh soglasheniy: monografiya [The Ci¬vil Law Institution of Shareholder Agreements: Monograph]. Moscow, 2011. 256 p. (In Russ.).
38. Syatchikhin A. V. Zaranee otsenennye ubytki v rossiyskom grazhdanskom prave. Diss. kand. yurid. nauk [Liquidated Damages In Russian Civil Law: Cand. jurid. sci. diss.]. Moscow, 2017. 261 p. (In Russ.).
39. Tomsinov A. V. Dogovornye ubytki v prave Anglii i SShA. Diss. kand. yurid. nauk [Contractual Losses in the Law of England and the United States: Cand. jurid. sci. diss.]. Moscow, 2011. 207 p. (In Russ.).
40. Tomsinov A. V. Zavereniya ob obstoyatel'stvakh i vozmeshchenie poter' v rossiyskom prave v sravnenii s representations, warranties i indemnity v prave Anglii i SShA [Assurances of Facts and Reimbursement of Losses under Russian law in Comparison with Representations, Warranties and Indemnity under English and American Law]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii – Herald of Economic Justice. 2015. Issue 11. Pp. 91–111. (In Russ.).
41. Trubitsyna T. A. Institut analogii v rossiyskom prave [The Institution of Analogy in the Russian Law]. Pravo i politika – Law and Politics. 2007. Issue 1. Pp. 5–9. (In Russ.).
42. Khlyustov P. Pyat' instrumentov dogovornogo prava [Five Instruments of Contract Law]. EZh-Yurist – Ekonomika i Zhizn – Lawyer. 2016. Issue 1. P. 5. (In Russ.).
43. Tsvetkov I. V. O nekotorykh aspektakh sover¬shenstvovaniya grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'¬stva: opyt sudebnoy praktiki [On Some Aspects of Improving Civil Law: the Experience of Judicial Practice]. Rossiyskiy sud'ya – Russian Judge. 2006. Issue 5. Pp. 30–35. (In Russ.).
44. Chashkova S. Yu. K voprosu o pravovoy prirode platy za otkaz ot ispolneniya dogovora [To the Question of the Legal Nature of Payment for a Unilateral Refusal to Execute a Contract]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika – Laws of Russia: Experience, Analysis, Practice. 2016. Issue 7. Pp. 22–28. (In Russ.).
45. Shirvindt A. M. Soglasheniya ob otvetstvennosti za narushenie obyazatel'stva vo frantsuzskom prave [Agreements on Liability for Breach of Obligation under the French Law]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava – Civil Law Review. 2013. Issue 3. Pp. 5–42. (In Russ.).
46. Ajani D. By Chance and Prestige: Legal Transplants In Russia and Eastern Europe. American Journal of Comparative Law. 1995. Vol. 43.
Issue 1. Pp. 93–117. Available at: http://www.
ajani_legal_transplants_russia.pdf (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
47. Auer M. The Structure of Good Faith: A Comparative Study of Good Faith Arguments. 2006. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.945594. (In Eng.).
48. Bernhardt R. Liquidated Damages or Alternative Performance? (February 3, 2014). 37 Real Property Law Reporter. Vol. 10. Available at: (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
49. Carlin T. M., Chau L. Good Faith – Time to Put the Genie Back in the Bottle. Journal of Law and Financial Management. 2005. Vol. 3. Issue 2. Pp. 22–30. Available at: https://ssrn.
com/abstract=692281 (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
50. Carter J., Peden E. A Good Faith Perspective on Liquidated Damages. Journal of Contract Law. 2007. Vol. 23. Issue 3. Pp. 157–179. Available at: (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
51. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ltd. v. New Garage & Motor Company, Ltd. 1915. A. C. 79. Available at: (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
52. Friedmann D. The Performance Interest in Con¬tract Damages. Law Quarterly Review. 1995. Vol. 111. Pp. 628–654. Available at: http://da¬
199510-The-Law-Quarterly-Review-The-Per¬formance-Interest.pdf (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
53. Grant S., Kline J., Quiggin J. A Matter of Interpretation: Ambiguous Contracts and Liquidated Damages. Games and Economic Beha¬vior. 2014. Vol. 85. Issue C. Pp. 180–187. DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2014.01.019. (In Eng.).
54. Manly QC. R. The Benefits of Clauses that Liquidate, Stipulate, Pre-Estimate or Agree Damages. 2012. 28 BCL 246; Monash Univer¬sity Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper. Issue 2012/63. Available at: https://ssrn.
com/abstract=2456495 (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
55. Mikryukov V. A. Limits of Analogy in the Mechanism of Judicial Reduction of Property Sanctions. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics. 2017. Vol. 8. Issue 5. Pp. 1563–1575. DOI: 10.14505//jarle.v8.5(27).
21. (In Eng.).
56. Salomons A. F. Good Faith Acquisition of Movables. Towards a European Civil Code. 4th Fully Revised and Expanded Edition; ed. by A. S. Hartkamp, M. W. Hesselink, E. H. Hon¬dius, C. E. du Perron and C. Mak. Kluwer Law International, Forthcoming. 2009. Available at: (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
57. Sloof R., Oosterbeek H., Riedl A., Sonnemans J. Breach Remedies, Reliance and Renegotiation. International Review of Law and Economics. 2006. Vol. 26. Issue 3. Pp. 263–296. Available at: (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.)
58. Spiegel Y. On the Economic Efficiency of Liquidated Damages. Economics Letters. 1994. Vol. 45. Issue 3. Pp. 379–383. Available at:
pii/0165176594900418 (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
59. Watson A. Legal Transplants: an Approach to Comparative Law. (2 ed.) University of Georgia Press. 1993. Available at: (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
60. Webb C. Performance and Compensation: an Analysis of Contract Damages and Contractual Obligation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2006. Vol. 26. Issue 1. Pp. 41–71. Available at: (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
61. Wilkinson‐Ryan T. Do Liquidated Damages Encourage Breach? A Psychological Experiment. Michigan Law Review. 2010. Vol. 108. Pp. 633–672. Available at:
1299817 (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
62. Wood M. Delay Damages. Sloan Plumb Wood. Legal Article. London, 2014. Pp. 1–10. Avai¬lable at:¬cles.html (accessed 10.04.2018). (In Eng.).
Received: 05.02.2018
Financing: ---




The Perm State University
614990, Perm, street Bukireva, 15
+7 (342) 2 396 275
ISSN 1995-4190 ISSN (eng.) 2618-8104
ISSN (online) 2658-7106
DOI 10.17072/1995-4190
(с) Editorial board, 2010
The magazine is registered in Federal Agency of supervision in sphere of communication and mass communications.
The certificate on registration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-33087 from September, 5th, 2008
The certificate on reregistration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-53189 from Marth, 14th, 2013

The magazine is included in List ВАК and in the Russian index of scientific citing

The founder & Publisher: the State educational institution of the higher training
“The Perm State University”.
Publishing 4 times a year