Abstract
In recent decades, “pure economic loss” and its remedies have been one of the most highly debated topics in Civil Law. This is the case despite the fact that this concept has little legal presence in some European countries, namely France, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See von Bar (1999c), p. 2; von Bar (1999f), p. 44; von Bar (2002a), p. 31, fn. 149; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 30, fn. 15; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 194; von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, B13, p. 234; von Bar (2011d), p. 210. See also Herbots (1985), pp. 7–33; Lapoyade-Deschamps (1996). According to Banakas, different approaches between legal systems arise from the fact that in the French legal family (in contrast to the Anglo-American and Germanic legal families), the foundations of modern law of tort do not lie in the medieval metaphysical view of wealth as (physical) property (Banakas 1996, p. 11). For an overview of the reparation of pure economic loss in Europe see Stapleton (2007) and Voss (1987), for a comparison between German, Anglo-American and Dutch law.
- 3.
- 4.
According to the Swedish Damages Act (Chap. 1, 2), “… purely financial loss shall mean an economic loss that is entirely unconnected with a person sustaining personal injury or damage to his or her property” (translation: von Bar 1999f, p. 44, fn. 8). See also von Bar (1996b), p. 43, fn. 158; von Bar (1999c), p. 6, fn. 18; von Bar (1999e), p. 36.
- 5.
- 6.
von Bar (1999f), p. 44; von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, B13, p. 234. For details see Wilkinson and Forte (1985), pp. 8–9; O’Sullivan (1991), pp. 109–125; Wetterstein (2001), pp. 565–589. This approach prevails in England, Ireland, Scotland, Sweden and Finland. See von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 29, n. 46.
- 7.
von Bar (1999f), p. 44. See also Banakas (1989), p. 126; Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 153; Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 174; Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 37; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), pp. 29−30; Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 238; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 149; von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, B13, p. 234.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
See Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 36 ff.; Miranda Barbosa (2006a), pp. 214−253; Santos Silva (2008), pp. 234–252. The expression danos económicos puros is considered to more fully express this reality, as being “more suggestive, more in accordance with the foreign expressions used currently to refer to it and less inclined to create confusion with the economic loss which is usually produced by an infringement of a property or personal right” (Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos 2006, p. 155, fn. 5). See also Amaral Cabral (2001), pp. 1028–1029, fn. 7.
- 15.
Some common designations in use are: danos patrimoniais primários (França Gouveia 2005, p. 40), danos meramente patrimoniais (Sinde Monteiro 1989, p. 187), danos puramente patrimoniais (Menezes Leitão 2009), danos patrimoniais puros (Pestana de Vasconcelos 2007) and danos puramente económicos (Menezes Leitão 2002).
- 16.
- 17.
Antunes Varela (2000), p. 621. This definition seems to be open to criticism, firstly because loss caused to third parties is, by definition, caused outside of a contractual or para-contractual relationship and, secondly, because pure economic loss can also be inflicted on contractual parties (in which case they are, typically, compensated).
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
Castronovo (1997), p. 153 ff.
- 21.
- 22.
Within non-contractual liability cases, see: RP 7 June 2004, proc. 0452504 (injury of spectator of car race); RP 10 November 2009, proc. 13579/07.7TBUNG.P1 (product liability); RL 24 January 2013, proc. 31324/09.OT2SNT.L1-2 (deprivation of use); RL 11 March 2014, proc. 13359/02.6TJL.SB.L1-7 (product liability); RL 17 December 2014, proc. 35/13.3TBCSG.L1-2 (road traffic accident).
- 23.
STJ 11 March 2003, proc. 03A418.
- 24.
Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 220.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), pp. 159 ff., pp. 219–220. Another classification divides pure economic losses into four categories: reflex losses ; cable cases ; loss resulting from the exercise of contractual freedom, and competition freedom (Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), pp. 151–153).
- 28.
This classification refers to the standard cases referenced in the largest European-wide comparative study in the field of pure economic losses . Those cases are: 1. a cable case: the laid-off workers; 2. the injured key-player; 3. the infected animal; 4. the cancelled cruise; 5. the dutiful spouse; 6. Auditor’s liability; 7. ruined credit; 8. evidence spoliation; 9. the pension scheme. See Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 272–273. This corresponds, essentially, to the recent classification of Doobe (Doobe 2014, pp. 43–52).
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
von Bar (2009c), n. B12 to VI.–2:206, p. 483; n. F34 to VI.–2:206, p. 489; Doobe (2014), pp. 82–83. For a detailed survey of the cable-cases in the Portuguese legal scholarship , see Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 199 ff. and p. 257 ff.; França Gouveia (2005), pp. 30–48 and Miranda Barbosa (2006a) (who, however, classified these losses as “transferred loss ” - ibid., p. 219). In the German legal scholarship see Bürge (1981), pp. 57–72; Honsell (2001), pp. 492–495; Markesinis and Unberath (2002), p. 56 ff.; Brüggemeier (2006), pp. 380–382.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 153.
- 41.
Goldberg (1991), p. 37.
- 42.
Ultramares Corp v louche (1931) 255 NY 170, p. 179. See also von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 122.
- 43.
Bussani et al. (2003), p. 120. White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 (HL) was a leading English tort law case on professional negligence . For details on this category of damages see generally, within the Portuguese literature, Sinde Monteiro (1989). See also Carneiro da Frada (1997), pp. 65–77. Within the German literature see Lorenz (1973), Mertz (1994), von Bar (1994b), Decku (1997), Honsell (2001), pp. 500–506; Plötner (2003); Büttner (2006), pp. 555–579; Doobe (2014), pp. 100–113.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
von Bar (2011b), p. 394.
- 47.
- 48.
Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 190; Gomes Canotilho and Vital Moreira (1997), n. 10 to art. 62, p. 805; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 621; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 190; Santos Silva (2006), p. 833; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 183; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 261. See also STJ 25 November 2009, proc. 397/03.0GEBNV.S1. See also, for Germany, von Bar (1981), pp. 1697–1698; Canaris (1983b), p. 36 passim; Blobel (2004), p. 190. In this regard, it has been argued that “as the assets consist of the final benchmark of compensation , were it the object of protection, it would not be a new right to add to the catalogue of compensable rights but (…) an antagonistic principle capable of undermining the entire system of economic loss” (Castronovo 1997, pp. 110–111). However, it has been pointed out that in Germany § 826 BGB would protect a person’s assets, as such (Frank 1979, p. 585).
- 49.
Junker (1993), pp. 348−363.
- 50.
Legal commentators add that recoverability of pure economic loss is made difficult through other devices, such as the Exkulpationsmöglichkeit (§ 831(1), See. 2 BGB), and the fact that the burden of proof relies with the person who sustains the loss (Schmidt-Kessel 2006, p. 21, fn. 128).
- 51.
- 52.
See Tit. § 1, Subtit. IV above.
- 53.
Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 176.
- 54.
- 55.
Koziol (2008), p. 28.
- 56.
- 57.
- 58.
Schäfer and Ott (2005), p. 327.
- 59.
von Bar (1991), p. 218; von Bar (1994b), pp. 107–108; Gómez Pomar and Ruiz García (2002), pp. 12–13; Backaus (2003), p. 67; Albuquerque and Pereira (2004), p. 115; Dari-Mattiacci and Schäfer (2007), pp. 3–4 passim; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 175; Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 267. Cf. also Atiyah (1997), p. 63. Victor Goldberg developed a theory to explain why compensation of pure economic loss outside contract law (in non-contractual law) is not efficient (Goldberg 1991, pp. 249–275). But see Banakas (1996), p. 8; Koziol 2004, p. 152 (for whom the more clearly the person inflicting the harm acted in his or her own economic interest, the more acceptable it is to compensate the resulting pure economic loss ).
- 60.
Banakas (1996), p. 9.
- 61.
ibid., p. 7.
- 62.
- 63.
- 64.
- 65.
- 66.
Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 232; Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 245. See also Dari-Mattiacci and Schäfer (2007), p. 2; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 209. van Boom (2004), p. 33; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 209. As Lord Denning put it, “[i]f claims for economic loss were permitted for this particular hazard, there would be no end of claims” (Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd. v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd. [1973] 1 QB 27, p. 38).
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
Koziol (2004), p. 149.
- 73.
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 40; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 156; Santos Silva (2006), p. 833 ff.; Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 248 ff. See also van Boom et al. (2004a), p. 191. For the difficulties in assessing which pure economic interests shall be protected, see Carneiro da Frada (2007b), pp. 238–251.
- 77.
The “new property” would comprise intangible goods in particular (Vaz Tomé 1997, p. 145 ff.).
- 78.
Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 251. It is in this context that the scholar defends the autonomy of a liability for trust.
- 79.
van Dam (2013), p. 211.
- 80.
- 81.
Schlechtriem (1998), pp. 6–21.
- 82.
Honsell (2001), pp. 488–507.
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 170. In the case law , see RP 11 January 2006, proc. 0512088; RP 19 April 2006, proc. 0515927; RG 27 Abril 2006, proc. 358/06−2. But see STJ 26 February 2004, proc. 03B3898.
- 86.
Arts. 9 ff. of the Act 19/2012 of 8 May 2012, DR, 1st Ser., no. 89 (2012), pp. 2404–2427.
- 87.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 171.
- 88.
- 89.
STJ 24 February 1960, BolMinJus 94 (1960), 107; STJ 15 June 1994, BolMinJus 438 (1994), p. 383.
- 90.
RL 22 May 1993, CJ 18 (1993-3), p. 188; Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 2 to Art. 485 CC, p. 487.
- 91.
- 92.
- 93.
Favourably, Antunes Varela (2000), p. 550.
- 94.
STJ 4 April 2006, proc. 06A222. See also Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 66.
- 95.
- 96.
For details see Tit. § 7, Subtit. IV below.
- 97.
von Bar (2009c), n. I8 to VI.–2:204, p. 450.
- 98.
- 99.
Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 563–564.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
One example of reliance in near-contractual devices is the case of that which is so far the only systematic legal theory on liability for advice, information and recommendation (Sinde Monteiro 1989).
- 103.
- 104.
The legislature intentionally abstained from expressly providing for the precise amount of such expenses, leaving it up to the courts to determine the number based on the uses and socioeconomic conditions of the deceased and his or her family (Abrantes Geraldes 2007b, p. 17).
- 105.
Viney and Markesinis (1985), p. 66. PEL Liab. Dam. refers to this subject in Art. 2:201. Para. 1 refers to losses sustained by the person who suffers the bodily injury . According to para. 2 a) consequential loss includes “the costs of health care, including expenses reasonably incurred for the care of the injured person by those close to him or her” (von Bar (2009c), n. D18 to VI.–2:201, p. 364). In France, if the injured person is a minor or a dependant, the parents or the person charged with care of the former have the right of claiming compensation for the medical and paramedical expenses incurred by the accident. However, when the victim is an adult, these claims exist only when the life of the victim is in danger, or the presence of the respective spouse or parents is medically justified (Le Roy 2004, p. 69). According to one position, the adequacy between the means of transport used and the journey, the number of people transported, the family habits, the existence of cheaper alternatives of transportation, etc. shall be assessed (Dias 2001b , p. 215, fn. 483).
- 106.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 165.
- 107.
Abrantes Geraldes (2007b), pp. 15–17. The Supreme Court of Justice has considered that the persons included under this provision have a right to compensation even when they do not display the “need” to receive such compensation (STJ 16 April 1974, RLJ 108 (1975−1976), p. 180).
- 108.
von Bar (2009c), n. D18 to VI.–2:201, p. 364.
- 109.
Not only legal literature (Dias 2001b, p. 242 passim) refers to the expression “third person”. According to the French Federation of the Associations of Medical Experts in Bodily Injury Evaluation (Féderation Française des Associations de Médecins Conseils Experts en Évaluation du Dommage Corporel, FFAMCE), made in the respective 29th Congress in 1993 in La Rochelle, there are three types of care providers: a provider of replacement (tierce personne de remplacement), who executes or helps to execute acts for the injured person ; a provider of surveillance (tierce personne de surveillance), who ensures that the injured person stays safe; and a provider of encouragement (tierce personne de stimulus), whose role is to help in the execution of acts and the development of skills whenever the injured person lacks motivation. See Muñoz et al. (2000), p. 99 ff.; Braga (2005), pp. 114–115.
- 110.
Braga (2005), p. 113.
- 111.
The legal system of social protection of situations of dependency (Regime da Protecção Social das Situações de Dependência) approved by the DL 265/99 of 14 July 1999, DR, 1st Ser., no. 162 (1999), pp. 4397–4401, considers in situation of dependency “the individuals who cannot practice with autonomy the acts indispensable to the satisfaction of daily needs, without the assistance of someone else” (Art. 3(1)). These acts are defined in the following number as those which concern the realisation of domestic services, movement and hygiene (Dias 2001b, pp. 231–232, fn. 525). The need of a personal carer must, in any case, be prescribed by a medical expert according to the seriousness of the handicap and the quality of the available technical tools (Dias 2001b, p. 243).
- 112.
- 113.
The STJ has already considered that the patrimonial value of the care provided must be proven by the carer (STJ 17 September 2009, proc. 292/1999-S1).
- 114.
- 115.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006) Pure economic loss : Portuguese report. Unpublished manuscript, pp. 165–166.
- 116.
Dias (2001b), p. 245; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 366. The Court of Appeal of Oporto decided that the injured person himself could not claim compensation for the lost income of his wife who assisted him (RP 8 November 2012, proc. 6439/07.3TBMTS.P1). The STJ (STJ 8 March 2005, proc. 05A395) further considered that in relation to the foregone wages of the carer , the injured person suffered an indirect loss . See also von Bar (1980b), p. 12. This shows that the legal matrix as such is not very convincing, nor is the distinction between primary and secondary victim that is often used in the same context (von Bar 2011b , p. 394).
- 117.
See also Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 1b to Art. 495, p. 498.
- 118.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), pp. 165–167. Such right is limited to the period of absolute incapacity of the injured person (STJ 13 May 2004, proc. 04B1185).
- 119.
Abrantes Geraldes (2007b), p. 18. In line with this reasoning, the STJ granted compensation to the carer of an injured person until the moment a professional carer was contracted (STJ 2 March 2011, proc. 1639/03.8TBBNV.L1).
- 120.
See argumentation of the claimants in STJ 26 February 2004, proc. 03B3604.
- 121.
The STJ provided a right to compensation of the difference in the wage since he assisted his injured child, even though his mother was already assisting the child, based on Art. 1874 CC (STJ 16 December 1993, proc. 084508). In another decision, the STJ recognised the right of the mother to be compensated for the income foregone in the 342 days during which she assisted her son because the support was exceptional and more demanding than that normally expected of parents in respect of their children (STJ 13 May 2004, proc. 04B1185). The Supreme Court also already considered that such excess in the normal support of a patient must be proven by the carer (STJ 17 September 2009, proc. 292/1999-S1). In two dissenting opinions to this ruling (Salreta Pereira; Salazar Casanova), it was held that the added personal sacrifice of the spouse in the performance of her marital duty of assistance should have amounted to the grant of a compensation for moral losses.
- 122.
The STJ considered that the need to render assistance to the injured husband consisted of a serious limitation to the wife’s freedom of action and represented a breach of her personal rights under Art. 70 CC (STJ 8 March 2005, proc. 05A395).
- 123.
STJ 3 March 2009, proc.09A0009.
- 124.
In a 2004 decision (STJ 26 February 2004, proc. 03B3604), the STJ decided that despite the fact that the carer of the victim had abandoned her job and done the work which would otherwise have required three domestic workers, she did not have a claim for reparation . Due to the length of the care and the harsh conditions in which it was provided (due to the need for round-the-clock care, the carer was “forced” to live in a window-less storage room with bad smells from the sores of the injured person ) it seems that the Supreme Court relied excessively on the letter of the law , and a more equitable judgment would have been desirable in that instance.
- 125.
RP 4 April 1991, proc. 0124636.
- 126.
In the recent settling case law decision 6/2014 of 22 May 2014, the STJ decided that “[A]rticles 483(1) and 496(1) CC shall be interpreted in the sense of comprising non-economic loss , particularly serious loss, suffered by the spouse of a surviving victim, affected in a particularly serious way”, as was mentioned above (§ 4 IV).
- 127.
STJ 17 September 2009, proc. 292/1999-S1.
- 128.
The customary practice (gemeinrechtliche Praxis) since the seventeenth century has been to grant a maintenance claim to the children, the widow or widower, and the parents of the deceased, through a development of the Roman actio legis Aquiliae (Ranieri 2003, p. 1465). For further developments, see von Bar (1999e), pp. 192–196. According to some, the spirit of the law also includes those persons who become holders of a right to maintenance after the injury (Antunes Varela 2000, pp. 608 ff.), such as a foetus (Vaz Serra 1959a, p. 123). See also STJ 16 April 1974, RLJ 108 (1975–1976), p. 180.
- 129.
Nevertheless, courts often have difficulty in determining those persons entitled to claims in each specific case. The case law has not been clear about the circumstances for invoking a compensation right. In the decision STJ 29 February 1996, CJ (ST) 21 (1996-1), p. 104, the court denied compensation to a woman who lived separately from her husband. In another decision, the Supreme Court denied the claim of a grandson, who “could only distantly invoke the right to support” (STJ 16 March 1999, BolMinJus 485 (1999), p. 386).
- 130.
STJ 9 May 1991, BolMinJus 407 (1991), p. 141; STJ 11 November 1997, BolMinJus 471 (1997), p. 369; STJ 16 March 1999, BolMinJus 485 (1999), p. 386.
- 131.
- 132.
Ranieri (2003), p. 1480.
- 133.
van Boom et al. (2004a), p. 193. Before the regime of protective measures of non-marital relationships came into force (Act 7/2001 of 11 May 2001, DR, 1st Ser., no. 109 (2001), pp. 2797–2798, republished by Act 23/2010 of 30 August 2010, DR, 1st Ser., no. 168 (2010), pp. 3764–3768), non-marital partners were already potential claimants within Art. 495 (3). See von Lillienskiold (1975), pp. 353–356. See STJ 9 May 1991, BolMinJus 407 (1991), p. 141; STJ 11 November 1997, BolMinJus 471 (1997), p. 369.
- 134.
- 135.
Vaz Serra (1959a), p. 122.
- 136.
Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 622–623.
- 137.
van Boom (2004), p. 37 ff.
- 138.
Banakas (1989), pp. 152, 223. For Banakas, “tort law should show more awareness of the fact that, being a residual loss-allocation system, it may well have to be resorted to, when the secondary loss-allocation system breaks down completely” (ibid., 154). On the characterisation of the law of civil liability as a law of balance (droit d’équilibre) and law-function (droit-function) see Mekki (2008), pp. 745–755. See also Tunc (1990), p. 22 ff.
- 139.
van Boom et al. (2004b), p. 199.
- 140.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 166.
- 141.
- 142.
Nevertheless, when they sustain ricochet loss and there is no legal protective rule involved, claims are usually denied (Marschall von Bieberstein 1967, p. 128 ff.).
- 143.
van Boom et al. (2004a), pp. 193–194.
- 144.
- 145.
Canaris (1983b), pp. 58–78; Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 175, fn. 363; von Bar (2004a), p. 134. von Bar defended that the scope of § 823(2) BGB should be understood as comprising not only statutes aimed at protecting individual persons but also case law establishing duties (von Bar 1988, pp. 169–174) but this has not yet been adopted. See von Bar (1994b), p. 103, fn. 23.
- 146.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 163. According to the same legal scholar (ibid., p. 167), one of the rules that protects pure economic interests within its particular scope, is Art. 10 (Liability of auditors) of the Portuguese Securities Code, DL 486/99 of 13 November 1999, DR, 1st Ser., no. 265 (1999), 7968–8040, last amended by DL 124/2015 of 7 July 2015, DR, 1st Ser., no. 130 (2015), pp. 4467–4670, which reads: “1. The losses caused to issuers or third persons due to a deficiency in a report or opinion drafted by an auditor must be entirely [solidariamente] and in an unlimited way compensated by: (a) Statutory auditors and other persons who had signed the opinion; (b) firms of statutory auditors and other firms of auditors, provided that the audited documents had been signed by one of their members.” On this topic see Ganuza and Gómez (2005), pp. 1–25.
- 147.
- 148.
Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), pp. 183–191.
- 149.
Menezes Leitão (2009), pp. 261, 279.
- 150.
Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 50.
- 151.
Santos Silva (2006), p. 834.
- 152.
See generally Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 48 ff., in particular 50.
- 153.
Cf. Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158.
- 154.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158.
- 155.
Carneiro da Frada (1997), pp. 32–33, fn. 17 and 61 ff. According to Carneiro da Frada, the freedom of economic initiative is not susceptible to individual appropriation and, therefore, it cannot be attributed to individuals in terms of a subjective right (ibid., pp. 61 ff.).
- 156.
- 157.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158.
- 158.
- 159.
Santos Silva (2006), p. 835.
- 160.
According to one theory (Brüggemeier 1982, p. 419, including further references), the expansion would have occurred through admission of prima facie means of proof for causation and fault (Haftungsverlagerung durch beweisrechtliche Mittel); the inclusion in § 823(1) BGB of damage caused with organisations, liability in vigilando and enlargement of liability of organs; the listing and standardisation of conditions for the classification of a conduct as negligent, which led to a new special category of liability for negligent acts; and the expansion of the scope of § 826 BGB to allow for the protection of economic interests. See also von Bar (1980b), p. 211 ff. and references therein.
- 161.
Deutsch (1963), pp. 385−390.
- 162.
For further details see following subsection.
- 163.
Brüggemeier (1982), p. 419 and references therein for the first case law on each of these novelties.
- 164.
- 165.
See, for example, von Bar (2000b), p. 606.
- 166.
For the interpretation of the expression in German law, see Schlechtriem (2003), p. 353 ff.
- 167.
- 168.
- 169.
- 170.
Menezes Cordeiro (2002), pp. 1229 and 1245.
- 171.
Settling case law decision 6/2014 of 22 May 2014, p. 2937, p. 2939.
- 172.
For Germany see Möschel (1977), pp. 1−4.
- 173.
Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 592–594; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 301. For details on the loss resulting from impairment of use see generally Gomes (1986), pp. 169−239. Within the case law see, inter alia, STJ 29 May 2014, proc. 130/09.3TBCBC.G1.S1 and STJ 26 February 2015, proc. 693/10.0TVPRT.C1.P1.S1. See, however, STJ 17 November 1998, proc. 98A977. As for the DCFR, VI.–2:206 (“Loss upon impairment of property or lawful possession ”) “includes being deprived of the use of property ” (2, lit. a).
- 174.
See generally Abrantes Geraldes (2007a).
- 175.
- 176.
STJ 23 January 2001, proc.00A3525; RE 26 March 1980, CJ 5 (1980–2), p. 96. See however STJ 4 December 2003, proc. 03B3030. In Germany, BGHZ 153, p. 159; BGH NJW 1977, p. 2264. For a discussion, see generally von Bar (1992c), p. 28 ff.
- 177.
- 178.
Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 206, fn. 102.
- 179.
- 180.
Opoku (1972), p. 233.
- 181.
An autonomous presence in the BGB has been defended (von Bar 1981 , p. 1793 passim).
- 182.
Schlechtriem (1998), pp. 1 and 9.
- 183.
Santos Silva (2006), p. 836.
- 184.
Vaz Serra (1960a), p. 11.
- 185.
- 186.
Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 835.
- 187.
- 188.
Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 50.
- 189.
- 190.
The Constitutional Court considered the right to form an enterprise to be guaranteed by the Constitution (TC 12 July 1990, proc. 89-0102).
- 191.
Santos Silva (2006), pp. 826−838.
- 192.
- 193.
Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 835. On the “right to form and run a business enterprise” see generally Schmidt (1993), pp. 985−992; Schildt (1996), pp. 2261−2266. See also Schlechtriem (1998), pp. 9–13; von Bar (1998a), pp. 64–66; Brüggemeier (2006), pp. 361–375; von Bar (2009c), n. 6 to VI.–2:208, pp. 525–526 (with case law references). For criticism see, in particular, von Caemmerer (1968), p. 89 ff.; Deutsch (1963), p. 387; Frank (1979), p. 586.
- 194.
On contractual solutions for recovery of third party loss see, generally, Mersinis 1999 .
- 195.
Schlechtriem (1998), p. 1.
- 196.
- 197.
Koziol (2004), p. 153.
- 198.
van Boom (2004), p. 37 ff. In a case related to loss sustained by family carers, the STJ expressly recognised that, had the carer (daughter) undertaken a contract of provision of care with the mother, her foregone wages would have been compensated (STJ 26 February 2003, proc. 3B3604).
- 199.
von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 132.
- 200.
Koziol (2004), p. 153.
- 201.
Cf. ibid., p. 146, with further arguments.
- 202.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158.
- 203.
- 204.
Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 448.
- 205.
von Bar (1982), pp. 637−654. For a classification of the cases which integrate this “tertium genus of liability”, see Brüggemeier (1982), p. 420 (including further references). For a detailed account see Schlechtriem (1998), pp. 20–21; Schäfer and Ott (2005), pp. 291–295 passim, critical on p. 297. In the case law see BGH NJW 1962, p. 31; BGH NJW 1977, p. 376; BGH NJW 1979, p. 643; BGHZ 66, p. 51.
- 206.
Most of these “tort-like” instruments of liability have been included in the Act on the Modernisation of the Law of Obligations (Gesetz zur Modernisierung des Schuldrechts) of 29 November 2001, published in BGBl I, no. 61, p. 3138 ff. See von Bar and Drobnig (2004), pp. 132−133.
- 207.
von Bar and Drobnig (2004), pp. 132–133.
- 208.
For the areas that non-contractual liability took from contracts see Brüggemeier (1982), p. 419 f.
- 209.
Markesinis and Unberath (2002), p. 59. The reason for extending the protection to the field of near contracts is related to other weaknesses of non-contractual liability , namely the exculpation possibility in § 823(1), 2nd part BGB, and the fact that the burden of proof lies with the person who suffered the loss (Schmidt-Kessel 2006, p. 21).
- 210.
Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158.
- 211.
van Boom (2004), p. 22.
- 212.
In Germany, Canaris is considered the caput scholae of liability based on reliance (Carneiro da Frada 1994, p. 249). See Canaris (1965), pp. 475−482; Canaris (1971) and Canaris (1983b), pp. 85 ff. In Portugal , this theory is particularly endorsed by Carneiro da Frada. See Carneiro da Frada (1997), Carneiro da Frada (2007a), Carneiro da Frada (2007b).
- 213.
Conduct which affects recognised economic interests is considered “contractual duties of care ”, firstly because of its closeness to contractual relationships and secondly because the scope of liability is increased, in these cases, to that provided for contractual liability within the BGB. For details see Brüggemeier (1982), pp. 422 ff.
- 214.
Brüggemeier (1982), p. 424.
- 215.
ibid., pp. 423–424.
- 216.
According to Canaris, this liability would involve not a contractual interest but, rather, the interest of the “integrity of the remaining legal goods” (Integrität der übrigen Rechtsgüter) and thus the difference would be in degree but not in principle (Canaris 1983b, p. 90).
- 217.
Jansen (2007), p. 39.
- 218.
For criticism of near-contracts see von Bar (2001c), p. 219 passim.
- 219.
- 220.
von Bar (1982), pp. 637 and 643.
- 221.
- 222.
Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 298–312.
- 223.
- 224.
This provision reads: “the person who negotiates with another for the conclusion of a contract shall, in the preparation of such contract and its formation, act according to good faith, or otherwise must compensate the loss it culpably causes to the other party”. For an analysis see Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 269 ff.
- 225.
Schlechtriem (1998), p. 8; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 257. It is considered that culpa in contrahendo should be dealt with within non-contractual liability law (BGH NJW 1982, p. 2431; von Bar 1982, p. 645), where the law would provide for a “satisfactory basic regulation”. See Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 301.
- 226.
Vaz Serra , BolMinJus 85 (1959c), p. 345 f.
- 227.
Sinde Monteiro (2007), p. 457.
- 228.
In this section, von Bar (2009c), n. 10 to VI.–2:211, pp. 553–554 is closely followed.
- 229.
Antunes Varela (2000), p. 179.
- 230.
- 231.
STJ 18 December 2013, proc. 6479/09.8TBBRG.G1.S1.
- 232.
- 233.
- 234.
Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 88.
- 235.
- 236.
von Bar (1998c), p. 3.
- 237.
ibid., p. 4. This doctrine arose in 1917 (RGZ 91, p. 21 ff.).
- 238.
- 239.
Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 341.
- 240.
- 241.
But see Luther (2013), p. 575.
- 242.
See von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 132.
- 243.
- 244.
von Bar (1998c), pp. 4–5.
- 245.
Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 328.
- 246.
- 247.
von Bar (1998c), pp. 10–11 passim.
- 248.
Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 825.
- 249.
ibid., pp. 821–822, fn. 3. See also Vaz Serra (1960a), pp. 23–24.
- 250.
Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 821–822.
- 251.
The forerunner of the development of the liquidation of third party loss was a case in the second half of the nineteenth century which, curiously, involved Portugal and Germany. For a description of the case see von Caemmerer (1965), pp. 241–242; Carneiro da Frada (2006), p. 98, fn. 114; Oliveira e Sá (2007), p. 210; Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 805, fn. 2263.
- 252.
von Caemmerer (1965), p. 243; Hagen (1971), p. 102; Berg (1977), p. 365 ff.; Lange and Schiemann (2003), p. 462. The Drittschadensliquidation is considered a “rare species of judicial creativity” the development of which is achieved by means of reliance on judicial precedent (von Caemmerer 1965, p. 245).
- 253.
See Santos Silva (2007), p. 25; Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 804, fn. 2263; Medicus and Petersen (2011), p. 423. According to Medicus, the transfer of what was obtained to the third person is a matter of internal relations, and in case of need one may resort to § 281 BGB (Medicus 2003, p. 616). Banakas (1989), p. 201.
- 254.
Deutsch (1996b), p. 69.
- 255.
Markesinis (2000), p. 298, fn. 24. In Germany, and despite the fact that some commissioners in the draft of the BGB (Mugdan 1899, pp. 517–518) proposed rules prescribing when a third party loss would be recoverable, the question was ultimately unanswered and left to the courts to develop a solution outside of the BGB (Unberath 2003, p. 85).
- 256.
Medicus and Petersen (2011), p. 423. The problem of the divergence between the formal title to claim compensation and the substantial loss exists as long as “loss” is considered to be a patrimonial subtraction (von Caemmerer 1965, p. 241 ff.); Canaris (1983a), p. 148; Junker (1991), p. 23 ff., p. 47 ff.; Junker 1993, pp. 348–368). Academic proponents of an objective concept of damage deny that there is a liquidation of a third party loss, affirming instead that the loss is suffered by the owner of the object or the claimant seeking compensation (Larenz 1987, p. 463 ff.; Würthwein 2001, pp. 422–423; Medicus and Petersen 2011, p. 423). Some legal scholars suggest resorting to “compensation of advantages” (Vorteilsausgleichung) to solve cases of recovery of a third party loss (Knobbe-Keuk 1972, pp. 196–198; Büdenbender 1995, pp. 920–921).
- 257.
- 258.
- 259.
Rebmann and Krüger (2016), § 249, no. 281.
- 260.
- 261.
Markesinis and Unberath (2002), p. 64; Unberath (2003), p. 85; Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 804, fn. 2263. For further differences, see Windelen (1996), pp. 19–27, in particular pp. 26–27; Traugott (1997); Medicus (2003), pp. 616–621, in particular pp. 618 and 619; Carneiro da Frada (2006), pp. 97–100; Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 140, fn. 108. For a detailed account of the differences between the contracts with protective efficacy towards third parties and the mechanism of recovery of third party loss , see Doobe (2014), pp. 76–82, in particular pp. 81–82. In addition to the liquidation of losses of third parties and the contract of protection of third parties, Medicus says that another exception to the doctrine of the interest of the creditor can be achieved through the extension of non-contractual law, either through the duties of care ( Verkehrspflichten ); the “other right” (sonstigesRecht) at § 823(1) BGB; protective laws (Schutzgesetze) at § 823(3) BGB; or the extensive interpretation of § 826 BGB (Medicus 2003, p. 613).
- 262.
von Bar (1998c), p. 12.
- 263.
Oliveira e Sá (2007), p. 210.
- 264.
- 265.
Medicus (2003), p. 614.
- 266.
Cf. Banakas (1989), p. 206.
- 267.
- 268.
See BGH NJW 1977, p. 1283; BGHZ 7, p. 30; BGHZ 21, p. 112. Although admitting that the removal of responsibility from the person inflicting the harm could lead to problems with the preventative aim of liability (Luther 2013, p. 582), others argue that this must be grounded within the law of damages (ibid., pp. 574–575).
- 269.
Büttner (2006), p. 10; Münch-Komm (2016), §249, no. 289.
- 270.
Markesinis and Unberath (2002), pp. 66–67.
- 271.
RGZ 115, 419, 426; BGH WM 1987, 581, p. 582.
- 272.
Unberath (2003), pp. 89–90.
- 273.
- 274.
- 275.
Medicus (2003), pp. 616–617 and 621.
- 276.
- 277.
- 278.
Banakas (1989), p. 206. Banakas includes the cases of loss caused by a statutory transfer of risk of a particular transaction (such as in the context of the Versendungskauf). See von Caemmerer (1965), p. 235; Esser (2000a), pp. 266–268; Banakas (1989), p. 206. Fikentscher suggests the following alternative classification: indirect representation (mittelbare Stellvertretung), transferred loss (schuldrechtlicher Schadensverlagerung), legatee (Vermächtnisnehmer). See Fikentscher (2006), p. 308.
- 279.
- 280.
Lange and Schiemann (2003), pp. 466–469.
- 281.
- 282.
Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 804, fn. 2263.
- 283.
- 284.
Markesinis and Unberath (2002), pp. 65–65.
- 285.
See, for example, Traugott (1997).
- 286.
Luther (2013), pp. 575 and 583. The author argues that this institution is “superfluous” (ibid., p. 603).
- 287.
Luther (2013), p. 600.
- 288.
- 289.
See BGH ZIP 1998, pp. 511, 512. The legal basis could be an implied term or an analogy to § 285(1) BGB. See Unberath (2003), p. 90.
- 290.
The trend in English law seems to be to apply reasoning similar to Drittschadensliquidation instead of extending recoverability of pure economic loss in tort (Markesinis and Unberath 2002, p. 66). See, inter alia, Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch. 297 and Leigh and Sillavan v Aliakmon Shipping Co. Ltd. (The Aliakmon) [1986] AC 785. For a similar approach, see Lord Clyde’s speech in Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd. v Panatown Ltd. (No. 1) [2001] 1 AC 518, p. 529. For a detailed account see Banakas (1989), pp. 207–208; Doobe (2014), p. 140 ff.
- 291.
- 292.
Vaz Serra (1960c), p. 131.
- 293.
- 294.
- 295.
Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 808, fn. 2263.
- 296.
- 297.
Parisi (2003), p. 75.
- 298.
Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 222–260.
- 299.
See Deschamps (1998), p. 367.
- 300.
Bussani and Palmer n.d, p. 697 ff.; Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 256, fn. 23 and p. 221.
- 301.
Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 222–223.
- 302.
ibid., pp. 223−224.
- 303.
- 304.
Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 252–260.
- 305.
Sacco (1991), p. 27 ff.
- 306.
- 307.
- 308.
- 309.
Schäfer and Ott (2005), p. 300. The BGH also believed that pure economic loss ought to be protected through the diffusion of the subjective conditions of § 826 BGB (BGH NJW 1993, p. 2931, p. 2934. See also von Bar 1982, p. 645), bringing it closer to the “objectified liability for negligence ” (objektivierte Fahrlässigkeitshaftung). See Schäfer and Ott (2005), p. 297; Habersack (2013), § 826, nos. 3 ff. For criticism of this approach, see von Bar (1981), pp. 1696–1697.
- 310.
The number of these laws is said to be the determinant of the true liability risk (von Bar 2000a, p. 54).
- 311.
- 312.
- 313.
von Bar (1998c), p. 5.
- 314.
Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 271.
- 315.
Honsell (2001), p. 487.Cf. Schäfer and Ott (2005), p. 300. For underlying reasons see von Bar (1994b), p. 108. For Banakas, however “the German non-liability presumption in the area of pure economic loss has, in general, survived the judicial activism around the established exceptions” (Banakas 1989, p. 117).
- 316.
- 317.
At the time of enactment of the BGB, by providing for three general clauses the BGB found a mid-point solution between Roman law and the French civil code (Kuhlenbeck 1903, p. 670).
- 318.
von Bar (1998a), pp. 22 and 23.
- 319.
On the fragmentary approach of the English law of torts, see Dias Pereira (2008), p. 515. In the early development of Common Law , a certain parallel between tort and delictum could be drawn (von Bar 2009d, p. 56). However, while the delictum suffered from the confluent processes of abstraction and generalisation until it led to general formulae such as Art. 483 CC, tort has remained unsystematic (Hedley 2011, p. 2), except for concrete situations of liability (Markesinis 1986, pp. 1056 ff.; Wagner 2006, pp. 1005–1012). Nevertheless, it is argued that the current formulation of the tort of negligence in English tort law may be comparable to a general clause of model liability (von Bar 2010a, p. 210). For details see Clerk and Lindsell (2011), Winfield et al. (2014). For criticism of the Rechtskreislehre see von Bar (2014a), p. 477 f.
- 320.
See Trigo (2012), p. 644.
- 321.
The separation between unlawfulness and fault , already described, was inspired by the German model (Santos Júnior 2003, p. 260 and pp. 264–265). For a critical account see Menezes Leitão 2009, p. 258, fn. 703. But see Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 138; von Bar (1998a), p. 34; Ranieri (2003), 1443, no. 70; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 256.
- 322.
Stoll (1984), p. 30.
- 323.
Martín Casals and Ribot Igualada (2003). See also von Bar (1999f), p. 43. Bussani and Palmer arrived at a similar conclusion from the results of their comparative study, saying that from the perspective of compensation of pure economic loss , “the Civil Law countries are themselves divided, not from the Common Law but along with the Common Law” (Bussani and Palmer 2003a , p. 530).
- 324.
- 325.
- 326.
von Bar (1999c), p. 9.
- 327.
- 328.
von Bar (1999c), pp. 3, 9–10.
- 329.
Debate on the arguments suitable for the determination of the interests that shall be considered legally relevant divides academia (Miranda Barbosa 2015, p. 225).
- 330.
- 331.
Pereira Coelho (1950), p. 47.
- 332.
- 333.
Pereira Coelho (1950), passim.
- 334.
ibid., p. 69.
- 335.
- 336.
Cf. Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 226.
- 337.
Miranda Barbosa (2015), pp. 224–225.
- 338.
Antunes Varela (2000), p. 543.
- 339.
- 340.
- 341.
- 342.
von Bar (2000a), p. 239.
- 343.
- 344.
The value judgment was thus over actions and not over the damage itself (see Prot. I, pp. 969−972; Gordley 2003, p. 39 f.).
- 345.
See, however, Brüggemeier (2006), p. 1553.
- 346.
von Bar (1981), p. 1694; von Bar (1991).
- 347.
- 348.
- 349.
- 350.
- 351.
von Bar (2000a), p. 239.
- 352.
- 353.
von Bar (1999c), p. 10.
- 354.
Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 261, fn. 17.
- 355.
Koch (2002), p. 545. See generally Wilburg (1941). See also Wilburg (1964), pp. 346–379; Canaris (1969), von Bar (1986), Koch (2002). For a critical view, which believes that it results in a fragmented understanding of the law of non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another , see Jansen (2003), pp. 565–569, 595.
- 356.
Canaris (1969), p. 76.
- 357.
- 358.
- 359.
- 360.
Jansen (2007), p. 33.
- 361.
Kling (2008), p. 233 f.
- 362.
Koch (2002), p. 545.
- 363.
Jansen (2007), p. 33.
- 364.
Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 274.
- 365.
von Bar (2001a), p. 521.
- 366.
Bibliography
Abrantes Geraldes AS (2007a) Temas da Responsabilidade Civil, vol I-Indemnização do dano da privação do uso, 3rd edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Abrantes Geraldes AS (2007b). Temas da Responsabilidade Civil, vol II-Indemnização dos danos reflexos, 2nd edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Alarcão R (1983) Direito das Obrigações. Coimbra, photocopied
Almeida Costa MJ (2006a) Direito das Obrigações, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Amaral Cabral R (2001) A tutela delitual do direito de crédito. In: Estudos em homenagem ao Professor Doutor Manuel Gomes da Silva. Coimbra Editora, Lisbon, pp 1025–1053
Antunes Varela J (2000) Das obrigações em geral, vol 1, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Atiyah PS (1997) The damages lottery. Hart, Oxford
Azevedo de Almeida M (2004) A responsabilidade civil do banqueiro perante os credores da empresa financiada - Studia Juridica 75. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Backaus JG (2003) Pure economic loss: an economic analysis. In: Bussani M, Valentine Palmer V (eds) Pure economic loss in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 57–74
Banakas EK (1989) Tortious liability for pure economic loss. A comparative study. Institut Hellénique de Droit International et Étranger, Athens
Banakas EK (1996) Tender is the night: economic loss - the issues. In: Banakas EK (ed) Civil liability for pure economic loss. Kluwer Law International, London, pp 1–25
Berg H (1977) Verträge mit Drittschutzwirkung und Drittschadensliquidation. JuS 17(1):363–367
Blobel F (2004) Der europäische Deliktsgerichtsstand und reine Vermögensschäden. Eine Anmerkung zur Entscheidung des EuGH vom 10.06.2004, Kronhofer/Maier et al. ELF 3(1):187–191
Braga A (2005) A reparação do dano corporal na responsabilidade civil extracontratual. Almedina, Coimbra
Brüggemeier G (1982) Gesellschaftliche Schadensverteilung und Deliktsrecht. AcP 182(1):385–452
Brüggemeier G (2006) Haftungsrecht. Struktur, Prinzipien, Schutzbereich. Ein Beitrag zur Europäisierung des Privatrechts. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg
Büdenbender U (1995) Wechselwirkungen zwischen Vorteilsausgleichung und Drittschadensliquidation. JZ 50(1):920–928
Büdenbender U (2000) Drittschadensliquidation bei obligatorischer Gefahrentlastung - eine notwendige oder überflüssige Rechtsfigur? NJW 53(1):986–992
Bürge A (1981) Die Kabelbruchfälle. Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum schweizerischen, österreichischen und deutschen Haftpflichtrecht. JBl:57–72
Büttner B (2006) Umfang und Grenzen der Dritthaftung von Experten: eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Bussani M, Palmer VV (2003a) General conclusions of the study. In: Bussani M, Palmer VV (eds) Pure economic loss in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 530–536
Bussani M, Palmer VV (2003b) The liability regimes of Europe-Their façades and interiors. In: Bussani M, Palmer VV (eds) Pure economic loss in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 120–159
Bussani M, Palmer VV (2003c) The notion of pure economic loss and its setting. In: Bussani M, Palmer VV (eds) Pure economic loss in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–24
Bussani M, Palmer VV (2003d) Pure economic loss in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bussani M, Palmer VV, Parisi F (2003) Liability for pure financial loss in Europe: An economic restatement. AmJCL 51(1):113–162
Calvão da Silva J (1990) A responsabilidade civil do produtor. Almedina, Coimbra
Canaris C-W (1965) Ansprüche wegen “positiver Vertragsverletzung” und “Schutzwirkung für Dritte” bei nichtigen Verträgen. JZ 15/16(20):475–482
Canaris C-W (1969) Systemdenken und Systembegriff in der Jurisprudenz entwickelt am Beispiel des deutschen Privatrechts. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Canaris C-W (1971) Die Vertrauenshaftung im deutschen Privatrecht. Beck, Munich
Canaris C-W (1983a) Die Feststellung von Lücken im Gesetz, 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Canaris C-W (1983b) Schutzgesetze-Verkehrspflichten-Schutzpflichten. In: Canaris C-W, Diederichsen U (eds) Festschrift für Karl Larenz zum 80. Geburstag, Beck, Munich, pp 27–110
Canaris C-W (1999) Die Reichweite der Expertenhaftung gegenüber Dritten. ZHR 163(1):206–245
Capelo de Sousa R (1978) A Constituição e direitos de personalidade. In: Miranda J (coord.) Estudos sobre a Constituição, vol 2. Livraria Petrony, Lisbon, pp 93–196
Capelo de Sousa R (1993) O direito geral de personalidade. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Capelo de Sousa RV (1995) O direito geral de personalidade, 2nd edn. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Carneiro da Frada MA (1994) Contrato e deveres de protecção. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Carneiro da Frada MA (1997) Uma “terceira via” no Direito da responsabilidade civil? O problema da imputação dos danos causados a terceiros por auditores de sociedades. Almedina, Coimbra
Carneiro da Frada MA (2006) Direito Civil, responsabilidade civil: O método do caso. Almedina, Coimbra
Carneiro da Frada MA (2007a) A responsabilidade pela confiança nos 35 anos do Código Civil: Balanço e perspectivas. In: Aa. Vv. Comemorações dos 35 anos do Código Civil e dos 25 anos da Reforma de 1977, vol III - Direito das Obrigações. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 285–307
Carneiro da Frada MA (2007b) Teoria da confiança e responsabilidade civil. Almedina, Coimbra
Carneiro da Frada M A, Pestana de Vasconcelos M J (2006) Danos económicos puros: Ilustração de uma problemática. In: Miranda J (coord.) Estudos em homenagem ao Professor Doutor Marcello Caetano, vol 2, pp 151–176. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Castronovo C (1997) La nuova responsabilità civile. Giuffrè, Milan
Castronovo C (2006) La nuova responsabilità civile, 3rd edn. Giuffrè, Milan
Clerk JF, Lindsell WHB (2011) Clerk & Lindsell on torts, 20th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Coester-Waltjen D (1992) Rechtsgüter und Rechte i.S.d. § 823 I BGB. Jura:209–212
Dari-Mattiacci G, Schäfer H-B (2007) The core of pure economic loss. IrLE 27(1):8–28
Decku GW (1997) Zwischen Vertrag und Delikt: Grenzfälle vertraglicher und deliktischer Haftung, dargestellt am Beispiel der Berufs- und Expertenhaftung zum Schutze des Vermögens Dritter im deutschen und englischen Recht. Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Deschamps CL (1998) La réparation du préjudice économique pur en droit français. Rev.int.dr.comp. 50(2):367–381
Deutsch E (1963) Entwicklung und Entwicklungsfunktion der Deliktstabestände. JZ 18(13):385–390
Deutsch E (1976) Haftungsrecht, vol I-Allgemeine Lehren. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich
Deutsch E (1996b) Der Ersatz reiner Vermögensschäden nach deutschem Recht. In: Banakas EK (ed) Civil liability for pure economic loss. Kluwer Law International, London, pp 55–71
Dias JA (2001b) Dano corporal. Quadro epistemológico e aspectos ressarcitórios. Almedina, Coimbra
Dias Pereira AG (2008) Portuguese case note. ERPL 16(3):513–521
Doobe C (2014) Der Ersatz fahrlässig verursachter reiner Vermögensschäden Dritter in Deutschland und England unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der ökonomischen Analyse des Rechts. Versicherungswirtschaft, Karlsruhe
Esser J (2000a) Schuldrecht, vol I-Allgemeiner Teil, 2, continued by E. Schmidt, 8th edn. Müller, Heidelberg
Fabricius F (1961) Zur Dogmatik des “sonstigen Rechts” gemäß § 823 Abs. I BGB. AcP 160(4/5):273–336
Fikentscher W (2006) Schuldrecht, 10th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin/New York
Fränkel M (1979) Tatbestand und Zurechnung bei § 823 Abs. 1 BGB. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
França Gouveia M (2005) Cable cases e intervenção de terceiros. CDP 10:30–48
Frank R (1979) Die Schutzobjekte des § 823 Abs. 1 BGB und ihre Bedeutung für die Systematik der Deliktstatbestände. JA 11(10):583–590
Galvão Telles I (1997) Direito das Obrigações, 7th edn. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Ganuza JJ, Gómez F (2005) Should we trust the gatekeepers? Auditors’ and lawyers’ liability for clients’ misconduct. InDret 310:1–25
Goldberg V (1991) Recovery for pure economic loss in tort: another look at Robins Dry Dock v. Flint. JLS 20(2):249–275
Gomes J (1986) O dano da privação do uso. RDE 12(1):169–239
Gomes J (2011) A violação do contrato com prejuízo de terceiro - Uma análise comparativa. In: Araújo F, Otero P, Taborda da Gama J (orgs.) Estudos em memória do Professor Doutor J. L. Saldanha Sanchez, vol 2. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 601–627
Gordley J (2003) The rule against recovery in negligence for pure economic loss: an historical accident? In: Bussani M, Palmer VV (eds) Pure economic loss in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 25–56
Gouveia de Andrade M P (1996) Da ofensa do crédito e do bom nome: Contributo para o estudo do art. 484 do Código Civil. Tempus, Lisbon
Gómez Pomar F, Ruiz JA (2002) The plural - and misleading - notion of economic loss in tort. A law and economics perspective. InDret (102):1–28
Gursky K-H (2005) Schuldrecht: Besonderer Teil. Müller, Heidelberg
Hagen H (1971) Die Drittschadensliquidation im Wandel der Rechtsdogmatik. Athenäum, Frankfurt am Main
Hedley S (2011) Tort, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Herbots J (1985) Le “duty of care” et le dommage purement financier en droit comparé. Rev.int.dr.comp. 62(1):7–33
Honsell H (2001) Der Ersatz reiner Vermögensschäden in Rechtsgeschichte und Rechtsvergleichung. In: Rauscher TM-P, Mansel HP (eds) Festschrift für Werner Lorenz zum 80. Geburtstag. Sellier, Munich, pp 483–508
Horsburgh B (1992) Redefining the family. Recognising the altruistic caretaker and the importance of relational needs. UMJLR 25(2):423–504
Howarth D (2011) The general conditions of unlawfulness. In: Hartkamp A, Hesselink MW, Hondius EH, Mak C, du Perron CE (eds) Towards a European civil code, 4th edn. Kluwer Law International/Ars Aequi Libri, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 845–887
Huber K (1978) Verkehrspflichten zum Schutz fremden Vermögens. In: Ficker HC, König D, Kreuzer KF, Leser HG, von Bieberstein M, von Caemmerer E (eds) Festschrift von Caemmerer zum 70. Geburstag. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 359–388
Jansen N (2002) Das Problem der Rechtswidrigkeit bei § 823 Abs. 1 BGB. AcP (202):517–554
Jansen N (2003) Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts. Geschichte, Theorie und Dogmatik außervertraglicher Ansprüche auf Schadensersatz. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Jansen N (2007) The state of the art of European tort law. Present problems and proposed principles. In: Bussani M (ed) East and West in the European tort law perspective. Stämpfli, Bern, pp 15–45
von Jhering R (1861) Culpa in contrahendo oder Schadensersatz bei nichtiger oder nicht zur Perfektion gelangten Verträgen in Jahrbücher für die Dogmatik des heutigen römischen und deutschen Privatrecht, vol 4. Gustav Fischer, Jena
Junker M (1991) Die Vertretung im Vertrauen im Schadensrecht: ein Beitrag zum Problem des Drittschadensersatzes. Beck, Munich
Junker M (1993) Das “wirtschaftliche Eigentum” als sonstiges Recht im Sinne des § 823 Abs. 1 BGB. AcP (193):348–363
Kling M (2008) Sprachrisiken im Privatrechtsverkehr. Die wertende Verteilung sprachenbedingter Verständnisrisiken im Vertragsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Knobbe-Keuk B (1972) Vermögensschaden und Interesse. Röhrscheid, Bonn
Koch BA (2002) Wilburg’s flexible system in a nutshell. In: Koziol H, Steininger BC (eds) European tort law 2011. Springer, Vienna/New York
Kötz H, Wagner G (2013) Deliktsrecht, 12th edn. Vahlen, Munich
Koziol H (2004) Compensation for pure economic loss from a continental lawyer’s perspective. In: van Boom WH, Koziol H, Witting CA (eds), Bloch B (contrib.) Pure economic loss, tort and insurance law, vol 9. Springer, Vienna, pp 141–161
Koziol H (2006) Recovery for economic loss in the European Union. Ariz Law Rev 48(4):871–895
Koziol H (2008) Conclusion. In: Koziol H, Schulze R (eds) Tort law of the European community. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 589–610
Kuhlenbeck L (1903) Das Bürgerliche Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich nebst dem Einführungsgesetze, 2nd edn. Carl Heymanns, Berlin
Lange H, Schiemann G (2003) Schadensersatz. In: Gernhuber J (ed) Handbuch des Schuldrechts, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Lapoyade-Deschamps C (1996) La réparation du préjudice économique pur en droit français. In: Banakas EK (ed) Civil liability for pure economic loss. Kluwer Law International, London, pp 89–101
Larenz K (1987) Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, vol I-Allgemeiner Teil, 14th edn. Beck, Munich
Le Roy M (2004) L’évaluation du préjudice corporel, expertises, principes, indemnités. Juris-Classeur, Paris
Leite de Campos D (2009) O contrato a favor de terceiros. Almedina, Lisbon
Lorenz W (1973) Das Problem der Haftung für primäre Vermögensschäden bei der Erteilung einer unrichtigen Auskunft. In: Paulus G, Diederichsen U, Canaris C-W (eds) Festschrift für Karl Larenz zum 70. Geburstag. Beck, Munich, pp 575–620
Luther C (2013) Kompensationschadenersatz statt Drittschadensliquidation. AcP 213(4):572–603
Markesinis BS (1986) A comparative introduction to the German law of tort. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Markesinis B (2000) Judicial style and judicial reasoning in England and Germany. CLJ 59(2, July):249–309
Markesinis BS, Unberath H (2002) The German law of torts. Hart, Oregon
Marschall von Bieberstein W (1967) Reflexschäden und Regreßrechte. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart
Martín Casals M, Ribot Igualada J (2003) “Pure economic loss”: La indemnización de los daños patrimoniales puros. In: Cámara Lapuente S (coord.) Derecho Privado Europeo. Colex, Madrid, pp 883–920
Mattamouros J (2006) A liquidação do dano de terceiro no Direito Civil Português. RFDUL 3:303–332
Medicus D (2000) Schuldrecht: Allgemeiner Teil, 12th edn. Beck, Munich
Medicus D (2003) Die “Identität des Schadens” als Argument für den Ersatz von Drittschäden. In: Schwenzer I, Hager G (eds) Festschrift für Peter Schlechtriem zum 70. Geburtstag. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 613–628
Medicus D, Petersen J (2011) Bürgerliches Recht, 23rd edn. Vahlen, Munich
Mekki M (2008) La cohérence sociologique du droit de la responsabilité civile. In: Fabre-Magnan M, Ghestin J, Jourdain P, Labrusse-Riou C (eds), Borghetti J-S, Deshayes O, Pérès C (coord.) Liber amicorum: Études offertes à Geneviève Viney. LGDJ, Paris, pp 739–762
Menezes Cordeiro M (1984a). Da boa fé no Direito Civil, vol. 1. Coimbra: Almedina
Menezes Cordeiro MD (1984b). Da boa fé no Direito Civil, vol. 2. Coimbra: Almedina
Menezes Cordeiro A (1986) Direito das Obrigações, vol 1. AAFDL, Lisbon
Menezes Cordeiro A (2002) Os direitos de personalidade na civilística portuguesa. In: Menezes Cordeiro A, Menezes Leitão L, da Costa Gomes M J (orgs.) Estudos em Homenagem ao Professor Doutor Inocêncio Galvão Telles, vol I-Direito Privado e vária. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 21–45
Menezes Cordeiro A (2010b) Tratado de Direito Civil Português, vol II - Direito das Obrigações. Tomo 3-Gestão de negócios, enriquecimento sem causa, responsabilidade civil. Almedina, Coimbra
Menezes Leitão A (2002) Os danos puramente económicos nos sistemas da common law - I. In: Moura Ramos RM, de Almeida CF, Marques dos Santos A, Pais de Vasconcelos P, de Lima Pinheiro L, de Brito MH, Moura Vicente D (orgs.) Estudos em homenagem à Professora Doutora Isabel de Magalhães Colaço, vol 2. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 197–218
Menezes Leitão A (2005a) Os danos puramente económicos nos sistemas da common law - II (jurisprudência Norte-Americana). In: Miranda J (coord.) Estudos em homenagem ao Professor Joaquim Moreira da Silva Cunha. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 19–38
Menezes Leitão A (2009) Normas de protecção e danos puramente patrimoniais. Almedina, Coimbra
Menezes Leitão LM (2013) Direito das Obrigações, vol 1, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Mersinis TG (1999) The case for contractual solutions in the third party pure economic loss. Ant. N. Sakkoulas/Bruylant, Athens/Brussels
Mertens H-J (1978) Deliktsrecht und Sonderprivatrecht. AcP 178(2/3):227–262
Mertz J (1994) Der Schutz primärer Vermögensinteressen im niederländischen und im deutschen Haftungsrecht. Carl Heymanns, Cologne
Miranda Barbosa AM (2006a) Liberdade vs. responsabilidade: a precaução como fundamento da imputação delitual? Almedina, Coimbra
Miranda Barbosa M (2015) Responsabilidade Civil: Um diálogo a propósito da ilicitude e da causalidade adequada entre o sistema Português e a tentativa de harmonização do direito delitual ao nível Europeu. TI 33(1):218–264
Möschel W (1977) Der Schutzbereich des Eigentums nach § 823 I BGB. JuS 17(1, Januar):1–4
Mota Pinto P (2008b) Interesse contratual negativo e interesse contratual positivo, vol 1. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Habersack M (2013) Municher Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol II-Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil III, §§ 705–853, 6th edn. (quoted here with the commentaries of G. Wagner). Beck, Berlin
Rebmann K, Krüger W (2016) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol II-Schuldrecht Allgemeiner Teil, §§ 241-432, 7th edn. (cited here with the commentaries of S. Grundmann). Beck, Munich
Mugdan B (1899) Die gesammten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich, vol 2. R.V. Decker’s Verlag, Berlin
Muñoz J I, Represas C, Suárez-Peñaranda JM, Rodríguez-Calvo MS, Vieira D N, Concheiro L (2000) La tercera persona en la ley española 30/95. Valoración médico-legal de los grandes inválidos. RDPC 9(10, November):99–105
Musielak H-J (1974) Haftung für Rat, Auskunft und Gutachten. de Gruyter, Berlin
Neuner J (1999) Der Schutz und die Haftung Dritter nach vertraglichen Grundsätzen. JZ 54(1):126–136
Oliveira e Sá F (2007) Contrato e liquidação de dano de terceiro - Análise de uma hipótese. In: Morais Antunes AF, Taveira da Fonseca AM, Pestana de Vasconcelos MJ (eds) Sá F Novas Tendências da Responsabilidade Civil. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 207–251
Opoku K (1972) Delictual liability in German law. ICLQ 21(2):230–269
O’Sullivan G (1991) Negligence: Is pure economic loss a lost cause? Recent changes in English law & their possible influence on Irish law. ISLR 1(1):109–125
Palmer VV, Bussani M (2007) Pure economic loss: the ways to recovery. In: Boele-Woelki K, van Erp S (eds) General reports of the XVIIth congress of the international academy of comparative law. Eleven International Publishing, Utrecht, pp 189–273
Parisi F (2003) Liability for pure financial loss: Revisiting the economic foundations of a legal doctrine. In: Bussani M, Palmer VV (eds) Pure economic loss in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 75–93
Parisi F, Palmer VV, Bussani M (2006) The comparative law and economics of pure economic loss. IrLE 27(1):29–48
Pereira Coelho FM (1950) O nexo de causalidade na responsabilidade civil. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Perry R (2004) Relational economic loss: An integrated economic justification for the exclusionary rule. Rut.LR 56(3):711–788
Pessoa Jorge F (1995) Ensaio sobre os pressupostos da responsabilidade civil, repr 1968, 2nd edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Pestana de Vasconcelos M J (2007) Algumas questões sobre a ressarcibilidade delitual de danos patrimoniais puros no ordenamento jurídico português. In: Morais Antunes AF, Fonseca AM, Vasconcelos MJ (eds) Oliveira e Sá F Novas tendências da responsabilidade civil. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 147–206
Picker E (1983) Positive Forderungsverletzung und culpa in contrahendo - Zur Problematik der Haftung “zwischen” Vertrag und Delikt. AcP 183:369–520
Picker E (1987) Vertragliche und deliktische Schadenshaftung. Überlegungen zu einer Neustrukturierung des Haftungssysteme. JZ 42(1):1041–1057
Pires de Lima FA, Antunes Varela JM (1987) Código Civil anotado, vol 1. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Plötner M (2003) Die Rechtsfigur des Vertrags mit Schutzwirkung für Dritte und die sogenannte Expertenhaftung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Ranieri F (2003) Europäisches Obligationenrecht. Springer, Vienna
Reinhardt R (1943) Beiträge zum Neubau des Schadensersatzrechts. AcP 148:147–187
Reinhard R (1961) Die subjektiven Rechte in § 823 Abs. 1 BGB. KF 1961 (Beiheft VersR). VVW, Karlsruhe, pp 3–19
Ribeiro de Faria JL (1990) Direito das Obrigações, vol 1. Almedina, Coimbra
Rogers WV, Spier J, Viney G (1996) Preliminary observations. In: Spier J, von Bar C (eds) The limits of liability: keeping the floodgates shut. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, pp 1–15
Sacco R (1991) Legal formants: A dynamic approach to comparative law (Installment I of II). AmJCL 39(1, Winter):1-34
Santos Júnior E (2003) Da responsabilidade civil de terceiro por lesão do direito de crédito. Almedina, Coimbra
Santos Silva ML (2006) Cour de cassation, comm., pourvoi no. 02-19370 du 5 avril 2005 –Schadensersatzanspruch des einfachen Lizenznehmers für entgangenen Gewinn gegenüber einem nicht vertraglich verbundenen Konkurrenten-Portuguese case note. ERPL 14(5/6):826–838
Santos Silva ML (2007) Anstiftung zur Verletzung von Vertragspflichten in Portugal. VersRAI:24–25
Santos Silva ML (2008) A ressarcibilidade dos danos económicos puros no âmbito do regime da responsabilidade civil extracontratual do Código Civil Português. RJVV 4(1):234–252
Santos Silva ML (2009) The compensation of pure economic loss in tort law in Portuguese legal scholarship. IJVO Jahresheft 16:52–62
Schäfer H-B, Ott C (2005) Lehrbuch der ökonomischen Analyse des Zivilrechts. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg
Schildt B (1996) Der deliktische Schutz des Rechts am Gewerbebetrieb. WM:2261–2266
Schlechtriem P (1981) Vertragliche und außervertragliche Haftung. In: Bundesminister der Justiz, Gutachten und Vorschläge zur Überarbeitung des Schuldrechts, vol 2. Bundesanzeiger, Cologne, pp 1591–1679
Schlechtriem P (1998) Civil liability for economic loss: Germany. Comparative law facing the twenty-first century. Unpublished manuscript
Schlechtriem P (2003) Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil, 6th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Schmidt K (1993) Integritätsschutz von Unternehmen nach § 823 BGB-Zum “Recht am eingerichteten und ausgeübten Gewerbebetrieb”. JuS 33(1, December):985–992
Schmidt-Kessel M (2006) Reform des Schadensersatzrechts, vol I - Europäische Vorgaben und Vorbilder. Manz, Vienna
Schweizer U (2005) Spieltheorie und Schuldrecht: Der Ersatz reiner Vermögensschäden. Schöningh, Paderborn
Sinde Monteiro JF (1989) Responsabilidade por conselhos, recomendações ou informações. Almedina, Coimbra
Sinde Monteiro J F (2007) Responsabilidade delitual. Da ilicitude. In Aa. Vv. Comemorações dos 35 anos do Código Civil e dos 25 anos da Reforma de 1977, vol III-Direito das Obrigações. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 453–481
Spier J, Haazen O (1998) Preliminary observations. In: Spier J (ed) The limits of expanding liability. Eight fundamental cases in a comparative perspective. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, pp 3–17
Spier J, von Bar C (eds) (1998) The limits of liability: keeping the floodgates shut. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston
Stapleton J (2007) Extra-contractual recovery of pure economic loss in Europe. In: Bussani M (ed) European tort law: Eastern and Western perspectives, European Private Law 5. Stämpfli, Bern, pp 225–247
Stoll H (1984) Richterliche Fortbildung und gesetzliche Überarbeitung des Deliktsrechts. Müller, Heidelberg
Tägert H (1938) Die Geltendmachung des Drittschadens. Boyens, Heide (Holstein)
Traugott R (1997) Das Verhältnis von Drittschadensliquidation und vertraglichem Drittschutz. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Trigo M G (2012) Adopção do conceito de “dano biológico” pelo Direito Português. In: Otero P, de Quadros F, Rebelo de Sousa M (coords.) Estudos de homenagem ao Professor Doutor Jorge Miranda, vol 6. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 629–653
Tunc A (1990) La responsabilité civile, 2nd edn. Economica, Paris
Unberath H (2003) Transferred loss: claiming third party loss in contract law. Hart, Oxford
van Boom WH (2004) Pure economic loss: a comparative perspective. In: van Boom WH, Koziol H, Witting CA (eds) Bloch B (contrib.) Pure economic loss, tort and insurance law, vol 9. Springer, Vienna, pp 1–40
van Boom WH, Koziol H, Witting CA (2004a) Outlook. In: van Boom WH, Koziol H, Witting CA (eds) Bloch B (contrib.) Pure economic loss, tort and insurance law, vol 9. Springer, Vienna, pp 191–205
van Boom WH, Koziol H, Witting CA (eds) (2004b) Pure economic loss, tort and insurance law, vol 9. Springer, Vienna
van Dam C (2013) European tort law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Vaz Serra APS (1959a) O dever de indemnizar e o interesse de terceiros. BolMinJus 86(1):103–129
Vaz Serra AP (1960a) Algumas questões em matéria de responsabilidade civil. BolMinJus 93(1):5–79
Vaz Serra A P (1960d) Requisitos da responsabilidade civil. BolMinJus 92(1):37–137
Vaz Serra A (1971) Anotação ao acórdão de 13 de Janeiro de 1970. RLJ 104(3442):12–16
Vaz Tomé MJ (1997) O direito à pensão de reforma enquanto bem comum do casal. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Viney G, Jourdain P (2006) Traité de droit civil. Les conditions de la responsabilité, 3rd edn. LGDJ, Paris
Viney G, Markesinis B (1985) La réparation du dommage corporel. Essai de comparaison des droits anglais et français. Economica, Paris
von Bar C (1980a) Unentgeltliche Investitionsempfehlungen im Wandel der Wirtschaftsverfassungen Deutschlands und Englands: Ein Beitrag zur Ersatzfähigkeit reiner Vermögensschäden. RabelsZ 44(3):455–480
von Bar C (1980b) Verkehrspflichten: Richterliche Gefahrsteuerungsgebote im deutschen Deliktsrecht. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin
von Bar C (1981) Deliktsrecht. In: Bundesminister der Justiz, Gutachten und Vorschläge zur Überarbeitung des Schuldrechts, vol 2. Bundesanzeiger, Cologne, pp 1681–1778
von Bar C (1982) Vertragliche Schadensersatzpflichten ohne Vertrag? JuS 22(1):637–654
von Bar C (1986) Zur Bedeutung des beweglichen Systems für die Dogmatik der Verkehrspflichten. In: Bydlinski F, Krejci H, Schilcher B, Steininger V (eds) Das bewegliche System im geltenden und künftigen Recht. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 63–74
von Bar C (1988) Entwicklungen und Entwicklungstendenzen im Recht der Verkehrs (sicherungs) pflichten. JuS 28(1):169–174
von Bar C (1991) Die Überarbeitung des Schuldrechts am Beispiel der Überarbeitung des Deliktsrechts. In: Osnabrück-Emsland JG (ed) Dreher M, Benda E (authors) Vorträge zur Rechtsentwicklung der achtziger Jahre. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich, pp 211–223
von Bar C (1992a) Negligence, Eigentumsverletzung und reiner Vermögensschaden. Zu den Grenzen der Fahrlässigkeitshaftung für reine Vermögensschäden in der neueren Entwicklung des Common Law. RabelsZ 56(3):410–443
von Bar C (1994a) Die Billigkeitshaftung in den kontinentalen Rechten der Europäischen Union. In: Hübner H, Helten E, Albrecht P (eds) Recht und Ökonomie der Versicherung. Festschrift für Egon Lorenz zum 60. Geburtstag. Versicherungswirtschaft, Karlsruhe, pp 73–93
von Bar C (1994b) Liability for information and opinions causing pure economic loss to third parties: a comparison of English and German case law. In: Markesinis BS (ed) The gradual convergence. Foreign ideas, foreign influences, and English law on the eve of the 21st century. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 98–127
von Bar C (1996b) Gemeineuropäisches Deliktsrecht, vol I - Kernbereiche des Deliktsrechts, seine Angleichung in Europa und seine Einbettung in die Gesamtrechtsordnung (English transl. Common European Law of Torts 1). Beck, Munich
von Bar C (1998a) The common European law of torts, vol I - The core areas of tort law, its approximation in Europe, and its accommodation in the legal system. Clarendon Press, Oxford
von Bar C (1998b) Germany. Antworten unter deutschem Recht. In: Spier J (ed) The limits of expanding liability. Eight fundamental cases in a comparative perspective, pp 119–127. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston
von Bar C (1998c) Verträge mit Schutzwirkung zugunsten Dritter, Drittschadensliquidation and extension of duty of care. In: Shiibashi T (ed) Toward comparative law in the 21st century. Chuo University Press, Tokyo, pp 3–21
von Bar C (1999b) Damage without loss. In: Swadling W, Jones G (eds) The search for principle. Essays in honour of Lord Goff of Chieveley. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 23–43
von Bar C (1999c) Das deutsche Deliktsrecht in gemeineuropäischer Perspektive. Müller, Heidelberg
von Bar C (1999e) Gemeineuropäisches Deliktsrecht, vol II - Schaden und Schadenersatz, Haftung für und ohne eigenes Fehlverhalten, Kausalität und Verteidigungsgründe (English transl.: Common European Law of Torts 2). Beck, Munich
von Bar C (1999f) Non-contractual obligations, especially the law of tort. In: Offermann KH (ed) The private law systems in the EU. Discrimination on grounds of nationality and the need for a European Civil Code. European Parliament, Luxembourg, pp 41–55
von Bar C (2000a) The common European law of torts, vol II-Damage and damages, liability for and without personal misconduct, causality, and defences. Oxford University Press, Oxford
von Bar C (2000b) Moderne Deliktsrechtspflege in den Zwängen einer wilhelminischen Kodifikation. In: Canaris CW, Heldrich A (eds) 50 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof. Beck, Munich
von Bar C (2001a) Konturen des Deliktsrechtskonzeptes der Study Group on a European Civil Code. Ein Werkstattbericht. ZEuP (9):515–532
von Bar C (2001c) Die Überwindung der Lehre von den Quasiverträgen in den Privatrechten der Europäischen Union. In: Hohloch G, Frank R, Schlechtriem P (eds) Festschrift für Hans Stoll zum 75. Geburtstag. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 93–112
von Bar C (2002a) Auf dem Wege zu Europäischen Grundregeln der außervertraglichen Schadenshaftung. In: Schlechtriem P (ed) Wandlungen des Schuldrechts, pp 165–178. Nomos, Baden-Baden
von Bar C (2003c) Schadensersatzsrecht nach dem zweiten Schadensersatzänderungsgesetz. In: Lorenz E (org.) KF 2003: Das Zweite Gesetz zur Änderung schadensersatzrechtlicher Vorschriften. VVW, Karlsruhe, pp 7–29, 65–67, 69–71, 97–99
von Bar C (2004a) Comparative law of obligations: methodology and epistemology. In: van Hoecke M (ed) Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Hart, Oregon, pp 123–135
von Bar C (ed) (2009c) Principles of European law on non-contractual liability arising out of damage to another. PEL Liab. Dam. Sellier, Munich
von Bar C (2009d) Ein “Werkzeugkasten” für das europäische Privatrecht? In: von Bar C (ed) Recht und Wirtschaft. Carl Heymanns, Cologne, pp 49–62
von Bar C (2010a) Außervertragliche Haftung für den Einem Anderen Zugefügten Schaden. Das Buch VI des draft common frame of reference. ERPL 18(2):205–225
von Bar C (2011b) The notion of damage. In: Hartkamp AS, Hesselink MW, Hondius EH, Mak C, du Perron CE (eds) Towards a European civil code, 4th edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 387–399
von Bar C (2011d) Rechtsvergleichende Beobachtungen zum Ineinandergreifen von Vertrags- und Deliktsrecht in Europa. In: Schulze R (ed) Compensation of private losses. The evolution of torts in European business law. Sellier, Munich, pp 201–212
von Bar C (2014a) Privatrecht europäisch denken! JZ 69(1):473–479
von Bar C, Clive E, Schulte-Nölke H, Beale H, Herre J, Huet J, Storme M, Swann S, Varul P, Veneziano A, Zoll F (eds) (2008) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: draft common frame of reference (Interim Outline Edition). Sellier, Munich
von Bar C, Drobnig U (2004) The interaction of contract law and tort and property law in Europe. Sellier, Munich
von Bar C, Markesinis BS (1981) Richterliche Rechtspolitik im Haftungsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
von Caemmerer E (1965) Das Problem des Drittschadensersatzes. ZHR 127(1):241–279
von Caemmerer E (1968) Wandlungen des Deliktsrechts, vol 1. In: Leser HG (org.) Gesammelte Schriften, vol I - Rechtsvergleichung und Schuldrecht, pp 452–553. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
von Lillienskiold M (1975) Aktuelle Probleme des portugiesischen Delikts- und Schadensersatzrechts. Ing. H. O. Hövelborn, Bonn
Voss KU (1987) Fahrlässiges Delikt und reiner Vermögensschaden - Haftungsgrenzen in der deutschen, anglo-amerikanischen und niederländischen Praxis. Karl Ulrich Voss, Cologne
Wagner G (2006) Comparative tort law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1003–1041
Weir T (1996) Pure economic loss in German law. In: Banakas EK (ed) Civil liability for pure economic loss. Kluwer Law International, London/The Hague/Boston, pp 73–87
Wetterstein P (2001) Compensation for pure economic loss in Finnish tort law. ScanStudL 41(1):565–580
Wilburg W (1941) Die Elemente des Schadensrechts. Elwert, Marburg
Wilburg W (1964) Zusammenspiel der Kräfte im Aufbau des Schuldrechts. AcP 163(4):346–379
Wilkinson AB, Forte AD (1985) Pure economic loss - A Scottish perspective. J.Rev 30(1):1–28
Windelen G (1996) Das Haftungsinteresse: Einfallstor für den Ersatz von Drittschäden? Pro Universitate, Sinzheim
Winfield PH, Jolowicz JA, Peel E, Goudkamp J (2014) Winfield & Jolowicz on tort, 19th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Witting C (2004) Compensation for pure economic loss from a common lawyer’s perspective. In: van Boom WH, Koziol H, Witting CA (eds) Bloch B (contrib.) Pure economic loss, tort and insurance law, vol 9. Springer, Vienna, pp 102–140
Wolf E (1967) Das Recht am eingerichteten und ausgeübten Gewerbebetrieb. In: Esser J, Thieme H (eds) Festschrift für Fritz von Hippel. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 665–685
Würthwein S (2001) Schadensersatz für Verlust der Nutzungsmöglichkeit einer Sache oder für entgangene Gebrauchsvorteile? Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Santos Silva, M. (2017). § 5 Drawbacks of Unlawfulness and Compensation of Pure Economic Loss. In: The Draft Common Frame of Reference as a "Toolbox" for Domestic Courts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52922-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52923-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)