@article{oai:chuo-u.repo.nii.ac.jp:00012581,
 author = {齋藤, 航},
 issue = {3},
 journal = {中央ロー・ジャーナル},
 month = {Dec},
 note = {application/pdf, The questions raised in part 3 of this series require consideration of two common law doctrines: “avoidable consequence” and “comparative negligence.” Comparative negligence is seen as part of torts, but avoidable consequence is applied in tort and contract.
 Both doctrines involve a diminution of damages because of unreasonable acts of an injured party. They are similar to comparative negligence in Japanese law, but they have distinct rationales. 
 This section discusses the three main rationales that support the doctrine of avoidable consequence: economic efficiency, morality, and expectancy interest. Economic efficiency, based on law and economics, reflects the policy of encouraging an injured party to attempt to avoid loss. An unreasonable failure to do so is morally blameworthy. The definition of expectancy interest includes the avoidable consequence doctrine in the contractual principle that damages should put an injured party in the position he or she would have been in if the contract had been performed.},
 pages = {31--60},
 title = {契約違反における過失相殺の法的性質 (4)},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2019},
 yomi = {サイトウ, コウ}
}