Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

§ 5 Drawbacks of Unlawfulness and Compensation of Pure Economic Loss

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Draft Common Frame of Reference as a "Toolbox" for Domestic Courts

  • 358 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The first comparative study on the topic in Europe was published in the 1980s and consisted in an analysis of the English, French and German legal systems (Banakas 1989). A recent list of international literature on the topic can be found in Santos Silva (2009), pp. 52–53, fn. 2.

  2. 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. 3.

    See von Bar (1999e), p. 11; van Boom (2004), pp. 2–4; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), pp. 29–30, p. 119; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 194.

  4. 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. 5.

    Banakas (1989), p. 126; von Bar (1999e), p. 31. For criticism of the “interest-oriented” approach see Koziol (2006), p. 872.

  6. 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. 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. 8.

    See von Caemmerer (1968), p. 65 ff.; von Bar (1992a), pp. 410–443; Schlechtriem (1998), p. 2; von Bar (2000b), p. 606; Honsell (2001), p. 483.

  9. 9.

    van Boom (2004), pp. 2–3; Menezes Leitão (2009).

  10. 10.

    For further information on the rights and interests protected by § 823(1) BGB see Reinhard (1961), pp. 3 ff.; von Bar (1981), p. 1699; Markesinis (1986), pp. 25–40; Coester-Waltjen (1992), p. 210 ff.; von Bar (2009c), n. VII62 to VI.–2:101, p. 338; Kötz and Wagner (2013), p. 46 ff.

  11. 11.

    See Kötz and Wagner (2013), p. 173. Cf. also Brüggemeier (1982), pp. 385–452; Gursky (2005), p. 207; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 224; von Bar (2009c), Intr. Chap. 1, B13, p. 233.

  12. 12.

    Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 216. See also von Bar (2000b), p. 606; Castronovo (2006), p. 109; Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 31 ff.

  13. 13.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 187 ff.; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006); Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 294 ff.; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007); Santos Silva (2008), pp. 234−252; Menezes Leitão (2009).

  14. 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. 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. 16.

    Alarcão (1983), p. 242; Ribeiro de Faria (1990), p. 416; Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 174; Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 36; Menezes Leitão (2005a), p. 19; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 155; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 149; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 562.

  17. 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. 18.

    Gómez Pomar and Ruiz García (2002), p. 3; Bussani and Palmer (2003c), pp. 5 passim; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 119; Witting (2004), p. 103; Menezes Leitão (2005a), p. 19, fn. 1; Santos Silva (2009), p. 55.

  19. 19.

    Frank (1979), p. 589; Blobel (2004), p. 190.

  20. 20.

    Castronovo (1997), p. 153 ff.

  21. 21.

    Banakas (1989), p. 122; von Bar (2000a), p. 40; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 119; Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 196−197. The opinion that pure economic loss can be compensated (Koziol 2004, p. 148) when it is consequential therefore seems contradictory.

  22. 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. 23.

    STJ 11 March 2003, proc. 03A418.

  24. 24.

    Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 220.

  25. 25.

    See Banakas (1989), pp. 40 ff.; Deutsch (1996b), p. 61; Martín Casals and Ribot Igualada (2003), pp. 901–917; van Boom (2004), p. 4; Koziol (2006), pp. 871–895; Menezes Leitão (2009), pp. 312–314.

  26. 26.

    van Boom (2004), p. 34; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 122. See generally Bussani and Palmer (2003c), p. 10 ff.; Parisi et al. (2006), p. 16 ff. This systematisation is also referred to in von Bar and Drobnig (2004), pp. 121–123.

  27. 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. 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. 29.

    See further, Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 202–203; Doobe (2014), pp. 93–100.

  30. 30.

    Also called “relational economic loss ” (Perry 2004, pp. 711–788; van Boom 2004, pp. 24–26; Koziol 2006, p. 880).

  31. 31.

    Abrantes Geraldes (2007b). In Germany see Marschall von Bieberstein (1967).

  32. 32.

    Ricochet loss is also called préjudice réfléchi (Lapoyade-Deschamps 1996, p. 373; Viney and Jourdain 2006, p. 154 ff.).

  33. 33.

    Honsell (2001), p. 484. Also called Reflexschaden (Marschall von Bieberstein 1967) or “reinen Vermögenschaden Dritter” (Honsell 2001, p. 484).

  34. 34.

    See generally Unberath (2003). See also von Bar (1980b), pp. 10–15; Banakas (1989), pp. 198–208; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 121 ff.; Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 219; Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 201–202.

  35. 35.

    Banakas (1989), pp. 198–208. See also von Bar (1980b), p. 10.

  36. 36.

    See BGHZ 114, 284. See also Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 201; Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 219; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 121.

  37. 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. 38.

    von Bar (1999b), p. 23; Amaral Cabral (2001), p. 1029, fn. 9; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 153. See also Brüggemeier, who considers this loss a per se Schaden (Brüggemeier 2006, p. 561).

  39. 39.

    von Bar (1980b), p. 11; Carneiro da Frada (2006), p. 97 passim.

  40. 40.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 153.

  41. 41.

    Goldberg (1991), p. 37.

  42. 42.

    Ultramares Corp v louche (1931) 255 NY 170, p. 179. See also von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 122.

  43. 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. 44.

    See Ranieri (2003), p. 1510. See also von Bar (1981), p. 1698; Deutsch and Weir (1996); Weir (1996); von Bar (1998b); Honsell (2001), p. 486; Markesinis and Unberath (2002), p. 43; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 131; Schäfer and Ott (2005), p. 296; Schweizer (2005).

  45. 45.

    Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 153; Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 181–182; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 156.

  46. 46.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 394.

  47. 47.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 187; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 155; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 261.

  48. 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. 49.

    Junker (1993), pp. 348−363.

  50. 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. 51.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), pp. 193–199; Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 176. For Germany, see Canaris (1983a), pp. 36–38; von Bar (1999f), p. 43; Gordley (2003), pp. 39 ff. Cf. Picker (1987), p. 1041. See further Schlechtriem (1998), pp. 1–2.

  52. 52.

    See Tit. § 1, Subtit. IV above.

  53. 53.

    Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 176.

  54. 54.

    For details on the arguments for exclusion of compensation of pure economic loss see Dari-Mattiacci and Schäfer (2007), p. 2 ff.; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 205 ff.

  55. 55.

    Koziol (2008), p. 28.

  56. 56.

    Honsell (2001), p. 484; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 219. For details on the historical development of non-contractual liability within Civil Law see Gordley (2003); Ranieri (2003), p. 1409 ff.

  57. 57.

    Menezes Cordeiro (1986), p. 217; Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 196 ff.

  58. 58.

    Schäfer and Ott (2005), p. 327.

  59. 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. 60.

    Banakas (1996), p. 9.

  61. 61.

    ibid., p. 7.

  62. 62.

    Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 167; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 166; Menezes Leitão (2009), pp. 266–267.

  63. 63.

    Koziol (2004), p. 144. But see Jansen (2007), pp. 40–41. Likewise, Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 224 ff.

  64. 64.

    Martín Casals and Ribot Igualada (2003), p. 897 ff. On this argument see Spier and Haazen (1998), p. 6 ff.; Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 230 ff.

  65. 65.

    The floodgate argument is variously referred to as a flood of claims, an avalanche (Prozeßlawine) or chain reaction (Kettenreaktion) of lawsuits. See von Bar and Markesinis (1981), p. 10. For further policy aspects in the field of pure economic loss see von Bar (1980a), p. 456.

  66. 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. 67.

    von Jherings (1861), pp. 12–13 apud Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 208, fn. 58. Menezes Leitão minimises the weight of this argument and considers that the problem of the extension of liability is a problem of all kinds of liability (Menezes Leitão 2009 , p. 266).

  68. 68.

    Banakas (1989), p. 216. See also von Caemmerer (1968), pp. 452, 471–472.

  69. 69.

    Azevedo de Almeida (2004), p. 52. See also von Bar (2000a), p. 29; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 209.

  70. 70.

    van Boom (2004), pp. 33–34; Koziol (2006), p. 875.

  71. 71.

    Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 119; Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 250. See also Picker (1983), pp. 470–473; Honsell (2001), p. 484; Schäfer and Ott (2005), pp. 289, 296.

  72. 72.

    Koziol (2004), p. 149.

  73. 73.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 32; von Bar (2000a), p. 4 ff.; van Boom et al. (2004b), p. 196. Cf. also Atiyah (1997), p. 65.

  74. 74.

    Rogers et al. (1996), p. 1; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 210. See generally Spier and von Bar (1998).

  75. 75.

    See Spier and Haazen (1998), Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 210, fn. 64. See, generally, Spier and von Bar (1998).

  76. 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. 77.

    The “new property” would comprise intangible goods in particular (Vaz Tomé 1997, p. 145 ff.).

  78. 78.

    Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 251. It is in this context that the scholar defends the autonomy of a liability for trust.

  79. 79.

    van Dam (2013), p. 211.

  80. 80.

    Koziol (2004), pp. 145–149. See also Koziol (2006), pp. 878–882.

  81. 81.

    Schlechtriem (1998), pp. 6–21.

  82. 82.

    Honsell (2001), pp. 488–507.

  83. 83.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 548. But see Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 310. In the case law see RL 21 May 1987 CJ 12 (1987−3), p. 88.

  84. 84.

    Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 169; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 517.

  85. 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. 86.

    Arts. 9 ff. of the Act 19/2012 of 8 May 2012, DR, 1st Ser., no. 89 (2012), pp. 2404–2427.

  87. 87.

    Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 171.

  88. 88.

    The topic was thoroughly analysed by Sinde Monteiro (1989). See also the comparative contributions of Lorenz (1973), von Bar (1994b).

  89. 89.

    STJ 24 February 1960, BolMinJus 94 (1960), 107; STJ 15 June 1994, BolMinJus 438 (1994), p. 383.

  90. 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. 91.

    Liability for advice, recommendations or information is dealt with within non-contractual law almost exclusively through § 826 BGB (Markesinis 1986, p. 148; von Bar 2009c , n. 5 to VI.–2:207, p. 516). But cf. Lorenz (1973), p. 579. On liability for advice see generally Musielak (1974).

  92. 92.

    von Bar et al. (2008), n. 8, VI.–2:207, p. 517; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 563. See also von Bar (1994b), p. 99.

  93. 93.

    Favourably, Antunes Varela (2000), p. 550.

  94. 94.

    STJ 4 April 2006, proc. 06A222. See also Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 66.

  95. 95.

    Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 1 to Art. 485 CC, pp. 486–487. See generally Sinde Monteiro (1989).

  96. 96.

    For details see Tit. § 7, Subtit. IV below.

  97. 97.

    von Bar (2009c), n. I8 to VI.–2:204, p. 450.

  98. 98.

    Capelo de Sousa (1993), p. 305; Gouveia de Andrade (1996), p. 28.

  99. 99.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 563–564.

  100. 100.

    See von Bar (1981), p. 1771; von Bar (1994b), p. 125 ff. See also BGH NJW 1987, p. 1758; BGHZ 166, 84, p. 108; Canaris (1999), pp. 206−245. According to Huber, the duties of care of professionals should be regarded as protective norms (Huber 1978, p. 359 ff.).

  101. 101.

    von Bar (1981), p. 1761. See Markesinis and Unberath (2002), p. 292.

  102. 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. 103.

    This would not, however, prevent Art. 495 CC from being susceptible to extensive interpretation (Vaz Serra 1971, p. 16). A similar situation exists in Scotland. See also von Bar (1980b), pp. 11–12.

  104. 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. 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. 106.

    Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 165.

  107. 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. 108.

    von Bar (2009c), n. D18 to VI.–2:201, p. 364.

  109. 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. 110.

    Braga (2005), p. 113.

  111. 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. 112.

    Dias (2001b), pp. 228, 242 passim. See also Horsburgh (1992), pp. 423−504.

  113. 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. 114.

    Abrantes Geraldes (2007b), p. 18; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 165.

  115. 115.

    Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006) Pure economic loss : Portuguese report. Unpublished manuscript, pp. 165–166.

  116. 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. 117.

    See also Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 1b to Art. 495, p. 498.

  118. 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. 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. 120.

    See argumentation of the claimants in STJ 26 February 2004, proc. 03B3604.

  121. 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. 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. 123.

    STJ 3 March 2009, proc.09A0009.

  124. 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. 125.

    RP 4 April 1991, proc. 0124636.

  126. 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. 127.

    STJ 17 September 2009, proc. 292/1999-S1.

  128. 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. 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. 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. 131.

    Honsell (2001), p. 489; Ranieri (2003), p. 1467.

  132. 132.

    Ranieri (2003), p. 1480.

  133. 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. 134.

    von Lillienskiold (1975), pp. 352–356; Ranieri (2003), p. 1466, fn. 125.

  135. 135.

    Vaz Serra (1959a), p. 122.

  136. 136.

    Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 622–623.

  137. 137.

    van Boom (2004), p. 37 ff.

  138. 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. 139.

    van Boom et al. (2004b), p. 199.

  140. 140.

    Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 166.

  141. 141.

    Bussani and Palmer (2003a), p. 535; Koziol (2004), p. 149; Koziol (2006), p. 882.

  142. 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. 143.

    van Boom et al. (2004a), pp. 193–194.

  144. 144.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), pp. 254–256; Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 175; Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 40 ff.; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), pp. 177–182; Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 256–257; Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 260; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 266; Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 221.

  145. 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. 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. 147.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 256. It is interesting to note the similarities of this position with Swedish Law and Finnish Law, both of which consider pure economic loss recoverable only when the damage constituted a crime (von Bar 1999c , p. 6).

  148. 148.

    Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), pp. 183–191.

  149. 149.

    Menezes Leitão (2009), pp. 261, 279.

  150. 150.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 50.

  151. 151.

    Santos Silva (2006), p. 834.

  152. 152.

    See generally Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 48 ff., in particular 50.

  153. 153.

    Cf. Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158.

  154. 154.

    Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158.

  155. 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. 156.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 62; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158; Carneiro da Frada (2007b), pp. 164–174, fn. 121.

  157. 157.

    Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158.

  158. 158.

    On this issue, see generally, Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), pp. 183–191. For case law see von Bar (2009c), n. 9 to VI–2:208, 527.

  159. 159.

    Santos Silva (2006), p. 835.

  160. 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. 161.

    Deutsch (1963), pp. 385−390.

  162. 162.

    For further details see following subsection.

  163. 163.

    Brüggemeier (1982), p. 419 and references therein for the first case law on each of these novelties.

  164. 164.

    Deutsch (1963), p. 388; Frank (1979), pp. 586, 589.

  165. 165.

    See, for example, von Bar (2000b), p. 606.

  166. 166.

    For the interpretation of the expression in German law, see Schlechtriem (2003), p. 353 ff.

  167. 167.

    Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 5 a to Art. 483 CC, p. 472; Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 558 ff.; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 447.

  168. 168.

    von Caemmerer (1968), p. 102 ff.; von Bar (1981), p. 1763 passim.

  169. 169.

    On the protection of personality rights, see Capelo de Sousa (1978), Leite de Campos (2009), Capelo de Sousa (1995).

  170. 170.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2002), pp. 1229 and 1245.

  171. 171.

    Settling case law decision 6/2014 of 22 May 2014, p. 2937, p. 2939.

  172. 172.

    For Germany see Möschel (1977), pp. 1−4.

  173. 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. 174.

    See generally Abrantes Geraldes (2007a).

  175. 175.

    See, however, ST J 12 January 2006, proc. 05B4176; RP 8 July 1997, BolMinJus 469 (1997), p. 663; Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 212. In favour, STJ 9 May 1995, BolMinJus 457 (1995), p. 325; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 301.

  176. 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. 177.

    Fabricius (1961), p. 304 ff.; Wolf (1967).

  178. 178.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 206, fn. 102.

  179. 179.

    Schlechtriem (1998), p. 11; van Dam (2013), p. 211. For an overview of case law see references in BGHZ 29, p. 65.

  180. 180.

    Opoku (1972), p. 233.

  181. 181.

    An autonomous presence in the BGB has been defended (von Bar 1981 , p. 1793 passim).

  182. 182.

    Schlechtriem (1998), pp. 1 and 9.

  183. 183.

    Santos Silva (2006), p. 836.

  184. 184.

    Vaz Serra (1960a), p. 11.

  185. 185.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), pp. 206–222; Calvão da Silva (1990), p. 360, no. 4.

  186. 186.

    Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 835.

  187. 187.

    Vaz Serra (1960a), p. 11; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 83.

  188. 188.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 50.

  189. 189.

    Vaz Serra (1960a), p. 11; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 83. In case law , STJ 19 March 2002, CJ (ST) 10 (2002–1), p. 138.

  190. 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. 191.

    Santos Silva (2006), pp. 826−838.

  192. 192.

    Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 569; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 447.

  193. 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. 194.

    On contractual solutions for recovery of third party loss see, generally, Mersinis 1999 .

  195. 195.

    Schlechtriem (1998), p. 1.

  196. 196.

    Koziol (2004), p. 145. Contract remedies are particularly employed in Germany, not only due to the tight constraints caused by the Enumerationsprinzip (Koziol 2006, p. 878 ff.).

  197. 197.

    Koziol (2004), p. 153.

  198. 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. 199.

    von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 132.

  200. 200.

    Koziol (2004), p. 153.

  201. 201.

    Cf. ibid., p. 146, with further arguments.

  202. 202.

    Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158.

  203. 203.

    For a detailed account, see Koziol (2004), pp. 145–146; Koziol (2006), p. 879. On the extension of contractual liability for protection of pure economic interests in Germany, see Schlechtriem (1998), pp. 16–19.

  204. 204.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 448.

  205. 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. 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. 207.

    von Bar and Drobnig (2004), pp. 132–133.

  208. 208.

    For the areas that non-contractual liability took from contracts see Brüggemeier (1982), p. 419 f.

  209. 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. 210.

    Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158.

  211. 211.

    van Boom (2004), p. 22.

  212. 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. 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. 214.

    Brüggemeier (1982), p. 424.

  215. 215.

    ibid., pp. 423–424.

  216. 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. 217.

    Jansen (2007), p. 39.

  218. 218.

    For criticism of near-contracts see von Bar (2001c), p. 219 passim.

  219. 219.

    von Caemmerer (1968), p. 56 ff.; Schlechtriem (1981), p. 1600.

  220. 220.

    von Bar (1982), pp. 637 and 643.

  221. 221.

    Menezes Cordeiro (1984a), p. 585; Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 38; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 175. In the German legal scholarship see Canaris (1983b), p. 90.

  222. 222.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 298–312.

  223. 223.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 301. See also von Bar (1998c), p. 3.

  224. 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. 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. 226.

    Vaz Serra , BolMinJus 85 (1959c), p. 345 f.

  227. 227.

    Sinde Monteiro (2007), p. 457.

  228. 228.

    In this section, von Bar (2009c), n. 10 to VI.–2:211, pp. 553–554 is closely followed.

  229. 229.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 179.

  230. 230.

    STJ 29 September 1995, BolMinJus 449 (1995), p. 374; Alarcão (1983), p. 84; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 177.

  231. 231.

    STJ 18 December 2013, proc. 6479/09.8TBBRG.G1.S1.

  232. 232.

    Menezes Cordeiro (1986), p. 251; Galvão Telles (1997), p. 554.

  233. 233.

    STJ 25 October 1993, BolMinJus 430 (1993), p. 455; STJ 19 March 2002 CJ (ST) 10 (2002-1), p. 138; Vaz Serra, BolMinJus 85 (1959), pp. 345−360; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 176; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 81. With further reference see Santos Silva (2006), pp. 826−838.

  234. 234.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 88.

  235. 235.

    ibid. This institution is also called “contrato de proteção em relação a terceiros”. See Menezes Cordeiro (1984b), p. 619 ff.; Sinde Monteiro (1989), pp. 518 ff.; Carneiro da Frada (1994), pp. 43–44; pp. 71–72, 143; Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 103 ff.

  236. 236.

    von Bar (1998c), p. 3.

  237. 237.

    ibid., p. 4. This doctrine arose in 1917 (RGZ 91, p. 21 ff.).

  238. 238.

    Markesinis and Unberath (2002), p. 59; Medicus and Petersen (2011), pp. 423–424. For an analysis of contracts in favour of third parties, see generally Leite de Campos (2009).

  239. 239.

    Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 341.

  240. 240.

    Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 89; Markesinis and Unberath (2002), p. 59; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 328.

  241. 241.

    But see Luther (2013), p. 575.

  242. 242.

    See von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 132.

  243. 243.

    von Bar (1998c), p. 5. See also von Bar (1982), pp. 641–642.

  244. 244.

    von Bar (1998c), pp. 4–5.

  245. 245.

    Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 328.

  246. 246.

    Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 91. For the consideration that the protected third party need not be in a close personal relationship with the creditor see von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 132. For details see Gomes (2011).

  247. 247.

    von Bar (1998c), pp. 10–11 passim.

  248. 248.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 825.

  249. 249.

    ibid., pp. 821–822, fn. 3. See also Vaz Serra (1960a), pp. 23–24.

  250. 250.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 821–822.

  251. 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. 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. 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. 254.

    Deutsch (1996b), p. 69.

  255. 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. 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. 257.

    Lange and Schiemann (2003), p. 456; Oliveira e Sá (2007), p. 209.

  258. 258.

    Vaz Serra (1959a) in particular, p. 103; Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 803, fn. 2263. In the German literature, see von Caemmerer (1965), pp. 241–279; Neuner (1999), pp. 126–127; Staudinger-Schiemann (2005), § 249, no. 62 ff.

  259. 259.

    Rebmann and Krüger (2016), § 249, no. 281.

  260. 260.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 24; Traugott (1997), pp. 16–18. For a critical account see Luther (2013), p. 574. Luther criticises the principle as such, as he considers “absolute rights ” to be relative, because the person infringing them is liable only for the person affected.

  261. 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. 262.

    von Bar (1998c), p. 12.

  263. 263.

    Oliveira e Sá (2007), p. 210.

  264. 264.

    Markesinis and Unberath (2002), pp. 214, 216. Tägert was likely the first author to identify these common features (Tägert 1938, p. 35 ff.).

  265. 265.

    Medicus (2003), p. 614.

  266. 266.

    Cf. Banakas (1989), p. 206.

  267. 267.

    von Bar (1998c), p. 11. See also Carneiro da Frada (2006), p. 98; Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 804, fn. 2263.

  268. 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. 269.

    Büttner (2006), p. 10; Münch-Komm (2016), §249, no. 289.

  270. 270.

    Markesinis and Unberath (2002), pp. 66–67.

  271. 271.

    RGZ 115, 419, 426; BGH WM 1987, 581, p. 582.

  272. 272.

    Unberath (2003), pp. 89–90.

  273. 273.

    Banakas (1989), pp. 201–202; Unberath (2003).

  274. 274.

    Decku (1997), p. 10; Doobe (2014), p. 80. See also Unberath (2003), p. 89. See also BGH NJW 1963, 2071, p. 2076.

  275. 275.

    Medicus (2003), pp. 616–617 and 621.

  276. 276.

    Knobbe-Keuk (1972), p. 197; Heck (2011), p. 53; Larenz (1987), p. 464; Büdenbender (2000), pp. 986–992, especially p. 987. In the Portuguese legal scholarship see Vaz Serra (1959a), pp. 112–113.

  277. 277.

    See Medicus (2000), p. 611 ff.; Medicus (2003), p. 617; Staudinger-Schiemann (2005), § 249, no. 68.

  278. 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. 279.

    Vaz Serra (1959a); Mattamouros (2006), pp. 303–333; Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 804, fn. 2263. Among the German legal scholars, see Lange and Schiemann (2003), pp. 471–473.

  280. 280.

    Lange and Schiemann (2003), pp. 466–469.

  281. 281.

    For details see Mota Pinto (2008b), pp. 804 ff., fn. 2263. See also Lange and Schiemann (2003), pp. 464–465; Medicus (2003), p. 616.

  282. 282.

    Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 804, fn. 2263.

  283. 283.

    Doobe (2014), p. 81. See also Banakas (1989), p. 206; Oliveira e Sá (2007), pp. 212–213.

  284. 284.

    Markesinis and Unberath (2002), pp. 65–65.

  285. 285.

    See, for example, Traugott (1997).

  286. 286.

    Luther (2013), pp. 575 and 583. The author argues that this institution is “superfluous” (ibid., p. 603).

  287. 287.

    Luther (2013), p. 600.

  288. 288.

    Hagen (1971), p. 137; Larenz (1987), p. 466. For details see Oliveira e Sá (2007), pp. 225–234.

  289. 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. 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. 291.

    Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 809. See also Oliveira e Sá (2007), pp. 244–245.

  292. 292.

    Vaz Serra (1960c), p. 131.

  293. 293.

    Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 620 ff., fn. 177; Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 608 ff.

  294. 294.

    Mattamouros (2006), pp. 325 and 330. But see Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 809, fn. 2263.

  295. 295.

    Mota Pinto (2008b), p. 808, fn. 2263.

  296. 296.

    Banakas (1989), p. 206. For a detailed account see Deutsch (1976), p. 485.

  297. 297.

    Parisi (2003), p. 75.

  298. 298.

    Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 222–260.

  299. 299.

    See Deschamps (1998), p. 367.

  300. 300.

    Bussani and Palmer n.d, p. 697 ff.; Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 256, fn. 23 and p. 221.

  301. 301.

    Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 222–223.

  302. 302.

    ibid., pp. 223−224.

  303. 303.

    ibid., p. 224. For this reason, some legal commentators consider there to be few differences in terms of outcome (Howarth 2011, p. 863). For this discussion see generally Bussani and Palmer (2003b).

  304. 304.

    Palmer and Bussani (2007), pp. 252–260.

  305. 305.

    Sacco (1991), p. 27 ff.

  306. 306.

    von Bar (2000a), p. 38; van Dam (2013), p. 213.

  307. 307.

    Huber (1978), pp. 359–360; von Bar (1994b), p. 103; Schlechtriem (1998), p. 4 ff.; von Bar (2000a), p. 54; von Bar (2000b), p. 606.

  308. 308.

    See von Bar (1999c). See also von Bar (1982), p. 645. For the extension of the concept of “Eigentum”, see Schlechtriem (1998), pp. 7–9. (For criticism of such extension, see von Bar (1999c), p. 13, fn. 34; von Bar 2000b, p. 605 ff.).

  309. 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. 310.

    The number of these laws is said to be the determinant of the true liability risk (von Bar 2000a, p. 54).

  311. 311.

    von Bar (1994b), p. 110, p. 120 passim; von Bar (2000a), pp. 52–53; Schäfer and Ott (2005), p. 290; Schmidt-Kessel (2006), pp. 20–21. An indication of the possible reasons for these developments is available in von Bar (1994a), p. 108.

  312. 312.

    Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 21, fn. 128. On the role of near-contractual liability as a means of tricking the limits of non-contractual liability , see von Bar (1982), pp. 637−654. For criticism see von Bar (2000b), pp. 606−607.

  313. 313.

    von Bar (1998c), p. 5.

  314. 314.

    Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 271.

  315. 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. 316.

    von Bar (1981), p. 1693. Scholars and courts have significantly changed the “rigid” complexion of the enumerative system in § 823(1) BGB (Banakas 1989, p. 116). For an analysis of § 823(1) BGB see Fränkel (1979); Jansen (2002), pp. 517−554.

  317. 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. 318.

    von Bar (1998a), pp. 22 and 23.

  319. 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. 320.

    See Trigo (2012), p. 644.

  321. 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. 322.

    Stoll (1984), p. 30.

  323. 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. 324.

    von Bar (2000b), p. 606. Cf. also von Bar (1999f), p. 43.

  325. 325.

    von Bar (2000a), p. 239. Cf. Also Frank (1979), p. 589.

  326. 326.

    von Bar (1999c), p. 9.

  327. 327.

    ibid.; von Bar (2000a), pp. 242–243. The concept of “Rechtswidrigkeit” would serve only to indicate the lack of defence (von Bar 1999c , p. 15).

  328. 328.

    von Bar (1999c), pp. 3, 9–10.

  329. 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. 330.

    von Bar (1999c), p. 10; von Bar (2000a), pp. 242−243.

  331. 331.

    Pereira Coelho (1950), p. 47.

  332. 332.

    ibid., p. 68. Critical of the Unrechtlehre in general, see Stoll (1984), p. 25. For criticism of the Erfolgsunrechtslehre see von Bar (2000a), pp. 237–238.

  333. 333.

    Pereira Coelho (1950), passim.

  334. 334.

    ibid., p. 69.

  335. 335.

    Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 530 ff.; Menezes Leitão (2013), pp. 259–279; Sinde Monteiro (2007), p. 454; Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 561 ff.

  336. 336.

    Cf. Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 226.

  337. 337.

    Miranda Barbosa (2015), pp. 224–225.

  338. 338.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 543.

  339. 339.

    Carneiro da Frada (2006), pp. 72–73. For a similar situation in Germany to the BGB see von Bar (2000b), pp. 596–597.

  340. 340.

    Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 138, fn. 275. See also Stoll (1984), p. 25.

  341. 341.

    Mertens (1978), p. 229; Howarth (2011), p. 875.

  342. 342.

    von Bar (2000a), p. 239.

  343. 343.

    See also von Bar (2000b), p. 606. Before the nineteenth century, judges did not identify pure economic losses but, rather, losses the claimant could recover (Gordley 2003 , p. 29).

  344. 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. 345.

    See, however, Brüggemeier (2006), p. 1553.

  346. 346.

    von Bar (1981), p. 1694; von Bar (1991).

  347. 347.

    Reinhardt (1943), p 187. Cf. Stoll (1984), p. 31.

  348. 348.

    von Bar (2003c), p. 11; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 334, fn. 1198.

  349. 349.

    Cf. Stoll (1984), pp. 26−27. Cf. also von Bar (1981), p. 1693.

  350. 350.

    von Bar (1999c), pp. 11−12; von Bar (2000a), p. 239.

  351. 351.

    von Bar (2000a), p. 239.

  352. 352.

    Bussani and Palmer (2003d), p. 126; Palmer and Bussani (2007), p. 256; Dias Pereira (2008), p. 514, fn. 7.

  353. 353.

    von Bar (1999c), p. 10.

  354. 354.

    Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 261, fn. 17.

  355. 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. 356.

    Canaris (1969), p. 76.

  357. 357.

    Wilburg (1941), p. 26; Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 261.

  358. 358.

    Koch (2002), p. 545; Jansen (2007), p. 33.

  359. 359.

    Koch (2002), p. 546; Koziol (2004), p. 153 ff.

  360. 360.

    Jansen (2007), p. 33.

  361. 361.

    Kling (2008), p. 233 f.

  362. 362.

    Koch (2002), p. 545.

  363. 363.

    Jansen (2007), p. 33.

  364. 364.

    Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 274.

  365. 365.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 521.

  366. 366.

    Cf. Jansen (2003), pp. 594−595. The difference could be a possible admission of a certain hierarchy of values (Canaris 1969, pp. 77−78).

Bibliography

  • Abrantes Geraldes AS (2007a) Temas da Responsabilidade Civil, vol I-Indemnização do dano da privação do uso, 3rd edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrantes Geraldes AS (2007b). Temas da Responsabilidade Civil, vol II-Indemnização dos danos reflexos, 2nd edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Alarcão R (1983) Direito das Obrigações. Coimbra, photocopied

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida Costa MJ (2006a) Direito das Obrigações, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Antunes Varela J (2000) Das obrigações em geral, vol 1, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Atiyah PS (1997) The damages lottery. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo de Almeida M (2004) A responsabilidade civil do banqueiro perante os credores da empresa financiada - Studia Juridica 75. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Banakas EK (1989) Tortious liability for pure economic loss. A comparative study. Institut Hellénique de Droit International et Étranger, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg H (1977) Verträge mit Drittschutzwirkung und Drittschadensliquidation. JuS 17(1):363–367

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga A (2005) A reparação do dano corporal na responsabilidade civil extracontratual. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüggemeier G (1982) Gesellschaftliche Schadensverteilung und Deliktsrecht. AcP 182(1):385–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüggemeier G (2006) Haftungsrecht. Struktur, Prinzipien, Schutzbereich. Ein Beitrag zur Europäisierung des Privatrechts. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Büdenbender U (1995) Wechselwirkungen zwischen Vorteilsausgleichung und Drittschadensliquidation. JZ 50(1):920–928

    Google Scholar 

  • Büdenbender U (2000) Drittschadensliquidation bei obligatorischer Gefahrentlastung - eine notwendige oder überflüssige Rechtsfigur? NJW 53(1):986–992

    Google Scholar 

  • Bürge A (1981) Die Kabelbruchfälle. Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum schweizerischen, österreichischen und deutschen Haftpflichtrecht. JBl:57–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Büttner B (2006) Umfang und Grenzen der Dritthaftung von Experten: eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussani M, Palmer VV (2003d) Pure economic loss in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussani M, Palmer VV, Parisi F (2003) Liability for pure financial loss in Europe: An economic restatement. AmJCL 51(1):113–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvão da Silva J (1990) A responsabilidade civil do produtor. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Canaris C-W (1965) Ansprüche wegen “positiver Vertragsverletzung” und “Schutzwirkung für Dritte” bei nichtigen Verträgen. JZ 15/16(20):475–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Canaris C-W (1969) Systemdenken und Systembegriff in der Jurisprudenz entwickelt am Beispiel des deutschen Privatrechts. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Canaris C-W (1971) Die Vertrauenshaftung im deutschen Privatrecht. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Canaris C-W (1983a) Die Feststellung von Lücken im Gesetz, 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Canaris C-W (1999) Die Reichweite der Expertenhaftung gegenüber Dritten. ZHR 163(1):206–245

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Capelo de Sousa R (1993) O direito geral de personalidade. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Capelo de Sousa RV (1995) O direito geral de personalidade, 2nd edn. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro da Frada MA (1994) Contrato e deveres de protecção. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro da Frada MA (2006) Direito Civil, responsabilidade civil: O método do caso. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro da Frada MA (2007b) Teoria da confiança e responsabilidade civil. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Castronovo C (1997) La nuova responsabilità civile. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Castronovo C (2006) La nuova responsabilità civile, 3rd edn. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Clerk JF, Lindsell WHB (2011) Clerk & Lindsell on torts, 20th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Coester-Waltjen D (1992) Rechtsgüter und Rechte i.S.d. § 823 I BGB. Jura:209–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Dari-Mattiacci G, Schäfer H-B (2007) The core of pure economic loss. IrLE 27(1):8–28

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Deschamps CL (1998) La réparation du préjudice économique pur en droit français. Rev.int.dr.comp. 50(2):367–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch E (1963) Entwicklung und Entwicklungsfunktion der Deliktstabestände. JZ 18(13):385–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch E (1976) Haftungsrecht, vol I-Allgemeine Lehren. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias JA (2001b) Dano corporal. Quadro epistemológico e aspectos ressarcitórios. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias Pereira AG (2008) Portuguese case note. ERPL 16(3):513–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Doobe C (2014) Der Ersatz fahrlässig verursachter reiner Vermögensschäden Dritter in Deutschland und England unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der ökonomischen Analyse des Rechts. Versicherungswirtschaft, Karlsruhe

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser J (2000a) Schuldrecht, vol I-Allgemeiner Teil, 2, continued by E. Schmidt, 8th edn. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius F (1961) Zur Dogmatik des “sonstigen Rechts” gemäß § 823 Abs. I BGB. AcP 160(4/5):273–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Fikentscher W (2006) Schuldrecht, 10th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fränkel M (1979) Tatbestand und Zurechnung bei § 823 Abs. 1 BGB. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • França Gouveia M (2005) Cable cases e intervenção de terceiros. CDP 10:30–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank R (1979) Die Schutzobjekte des § 823 Abs. 1 BGB und ihre Bedeutung für die Systematik der Deliktstatbestände. JA 11(10):583–590

    Google Scholar 

  • Galvão Telles I (1997) Direito das Obrigações, 7th edn. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganuza JJ, Gómez F (2005) Should we trust the gatekeepers? Auditors’ and lawyers’ liability for clients’ misconduct. InDret 310:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg V (1991) Recovery for pure economic loss in tort: another look at Robins Dry Dock v. Flint. JLS 20(2):249–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes J (1986) O dano da privação do uso. RDE 12(1):169–239

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gursky K-H (2005) Schuldrecht: Besonderer Teil. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen H (1971) Die Drittschadensliquidation im Wandel der Rechtsdogmatik. Athenäum, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedley S (2011) Tort, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herbots J (1985) Le “duty of care” et le dommage purement financier en droit comparé. Rev.int.dr.comp. 62(1):7–33

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Horsburgh B (1992) Redefining the family. Recognising the altruistic caretaker and the importance of relational needs. UMJLR 25(2):423–504

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen N (2002) Das Problem der Rechtswidrigkeit bei § 823 Abs. 1 BGB. AcP (202):517–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen N (2003) Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts. Geschichte, Theorie und Dogmatik außervertraglicher Ansprüche auf Schadensersatz. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Junker M (1991) Die Vertretung im Vertrauen im Schadensrecht: ein Beitrag zum Problem des Drittschadensersatzes. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Junker M (1993) Das “wirtschaftliche Eigentum” als sonstiges Recht im Sinne des § 823 Abs. 1 BGB. AcP (193):348–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling M (2008) Sprachrisiken im Privatrechtsverkehr. Die wertende Verteilung sprachenbedingter Verständnisrisiken im Vertragsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobbe-Keuk B (1972) Vermögensschaden und Interesse. Röhrscheid, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch BA (2002) Wilburg’s flexible system in a nutshell. In: Koziol H, Steininger BC (eds) European tort law 2011. Springer, Vienna/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötz H, Wagner G (2013) Deliktsrecht, 12th edn. Vahlen, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Koziol H (2006) Recovery for economic loss in the European Union. Ariz Law Rev 48(4):871–895

    Google Scholar 

  • Koziol H (2008) Conclusion. In: Koziol H, Schulze R (eds) Tort law of the European community. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 589–610

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlenbeck L (1903) Das Bürgerliche Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich nebst dem Einführungsgesetze, 2nd edn. Carl Heymanns, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange H, Schiemann G (2003) Schadensersatz. In: Gernhuber J (ed) Handbuch des Schuldrechts, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K (1987) Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, vol I-Allgemeiner Teil, 14th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Roy M (2004) L’évaluation du préjudice corporel, expertises, principes, indemnités. Juris-Classeur, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Leite de Campos D (2009) O contrato a favor de terceiros. Almedina, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Luther C (2013) Kompensationschadenersatz statt Drittschadensliquidation. AcP 213(4):572–603

    Google Scholar 

  • Markesinis BS (1986) A comparative introduction to the German law of tort. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Markesinis B (2000) Judicial style and judicial reasoning in England and Germany. CLJ 59(2, July):249–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Markesinis BS, Unberath H (2002) The German law of torts. Hart, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschall von Bieberstein W (1967) Reflexschäden und Regreßrechte. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattamouros J (2006) A liquidação do dano de terceiro no Direito Civil Português. RFDUL 3:303–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Medicus D (2000) Schuldrecht: Allgemeiner Teil, 12th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Medicus D, Petersen J (2011) Bürgerliches Recht, 23rd edn. Vahlen, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Cordeiro M (1984a). Da boa fé no Direito Civil, vol. 1. Coimbra: Almedina

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Cordeiro MD (1984b). Da boa fé no Direito Civil, vol. 2. Coimbra: Almedina

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Cordeiro A (1986) Direito das Obrigações, vol 1. AAFDL, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Leitão A (2009) Normas de protecção e danos puramente patrimoniais. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Leitão LM (2013) Direito das Obrigações, vol 1, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Mersinis TG (1999) The case for contractual solutions in the third party pure economic loss. Ant. N. Sakkoulas/Bruylant, Athens/Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens H-J (1978) Deliktsrecht und Sonderprivatrecht. AcP 178(2/3):227–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertz J (1994) Der Schutz primärer Vermögensinteressen im niederländischen und im deutschen Haftungsrecht. Carl Heymanns, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda Barbosa AM (2006a) Liberdade vs. responsabilidade: a precaução como fundamento da imputação delitual? Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Möschel W (1977) Der Schutzbereich des Eigentums nach § 823 I BGB. JuS 17(1, Januar):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Mota Pinto P (2008b) Interesse contratual negativo e interesse contratual positivo, vol 1. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugdan B (1899) Die gesammten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich, vol 2. R.V. Decker’s Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Musielak H-J (1974) Haftung für Rat, Auskunft und Gutachten. de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuner J (1999) Der Schutz und die Haftung Dritter nach vertraglichen Grundsätzen. JZ 54(1):126–136

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Opoku K (1972) Delictual liability in German law. ICLQ 21(2):230–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parisi F, Palmer VV, Bussani M (2006) The comparative law and economics of pure economic loss. IrLE 27(1):29–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira Coelho FM (1950) O nexo de causalidade na responsabilidade civil. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry R (2004) Relational economic loss: An integrated economic justification for the exclusionary rule. Rut.LR 56(3):711–788

    Google Scholar 

  • Pessoa Jorge F (1995) Ensaio sobre os pressupostos da responsabilidade civil, repr 1968, 2nd edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Picker E (1983) Positive Forderungsverletzung und culpa in contrahendo - Zur Problematik der Haftung “zwischen” Vertrag und Delikt. AcP 183:369–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Picker E (1987) Vertragliche und deliktische Schadenshaftung. Überlegungen zu einer Neustrukturierung des Haftungssysteme. JZ 42(1):1041–1057

    Google Scholar 

  • Pires de Lima FA, Antunes Varela JM (1987) Código Civil anotado, vol 1. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Plötner M (2003) Die Rechtsfigur des Vertrags mit Schutzwirkung für Dritte und die sogenannte Expertenhaftung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranieri F (2003) Europäisches Obligationenrecht. Springer, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt R (1943) Beiträge zum Neubau des Schadensersatzrechts. AcP 148:147–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhard R (1961) Die subjektiven Rechte in § 823 Abs. 1 BGB. KF 1961 (Beiheft VersR). VVW, Karlsruhe, pp 3–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro de Faria JL (1990) Direito das Obrigações, vol 1. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacco R (1991) Legal formants: A dynamic approach to comparative law (Installment I of II). AmJCL 39(1, Winter):1-34

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos Júnior E (2003) Da responsabilidade civil de terceiro por lesão do direito de crédito. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos Silva ML (2007) Anstiftung zur Verletzung von Vertragspflichten in Portugal. VersRAI:24–25

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos Silva ML (2009) The compensation of pure economic loss in tort law in Portuguese legal scholarship. IJVO Jahresheft 16:52–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer H-B, Ott C (2005) Lehrbuch der ökonomischen Analyse des Zivilrechts. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Schildt B (1996) Der deliktische Schutz des Rechts am Gewerbebetrieb. WM:2261–2266

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P (1998) Civil liability for economic loss: Germany. Comparative law facing the twenty-first century. Unpublished manuscript

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P (2003) Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil, 6th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt K (1993) Integritätsschutz von Unternehmen nach § 823 BGB-Zum “Recht am eingerichteten und ausgeübten Gewerbebetrieb”. JuS 33(1, December):985–992

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Kessel M (2006) Reform des Schadensersatzrechts, vol I - Europäische Vorgaben und Vorbilder. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer U (2005) Spieltheorie und Schuldrecht: Der Ersatz reiner Vermögensschäden. Schöningh, Paderborn

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinde Monteiro JF (1989) Responsabilidade por conselhos, recomendações ou informações. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Spier J, von Bar C (eds) (1998) The limits of liability: keeping the floodgates shut. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll H (1984) Richterliche Fortbildung und gesetzliche Überarbeitung des Deliktsrechts. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Tägert H (1938) Die Geltendmachung des Drittschadens. Boyens, Heide (Holstein)

    Google Scholar 

  • Traugott R (1997) Das Verhältnis von Drittschadensliquidation und vertraglichem Drittschutz. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunc A (1990) La responsabilité civile, 2nd edn. Economica, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Unberath H (2003) Transferred loss: claiming third party loss in contract law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • van Boom WH, Koziol H, Witting CA (eds) (2004b) Pure economic loss, tort and insurance law, vol 9. Springer, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dam C (2013) European tort law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra APS (1959a) O dever de indemnizar e o interesse de terceiros. BolMinJus 86(1):103–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra AP (1960a) Algumas questões em matéria de responsabilidade civil. BolMinJus 93(1):5–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra A P (1960d) Requisitos da responsabilidade civil. BolMinJus 92(1):37–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra A (1971) Anotação ao acórdão de 13 de Janeiro de 1970. RLJ 104(3442):12–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Tomé MJ (1997) O direito à pensão de reforma enquanto bem comum do casal. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Viney G, Jourdain P (2006) Traité de droit civil. Les conditions de la responsabilité, 3rd edn. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Viney G, Markesinis B (1985) La réparation du dommage corporel. Essai de comparaison des droits anglais et français. Economica, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1980a) Unentgeltliche Investitionsempfehlungen im Wandel der Wirtschaftsverfassungen Deutschlands und Englands: Ein Beitrag zur Ersatzfähigkeit reiner Vermögensschäden. RabelsZ 44(3):455–480

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1980b) Verkehrspflichten: Richterliche Gefahrsteuerungsgebote im deutschen Deliktsrecht. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1981) Deliktsrecht. In: Bundesminister der Justiz, Gutachten und Vorschläge zur Überarbeitung des Schuldrechts, vol 2. Bundesanzeiger, Cologne, pp 1681–1778

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1982) Vertragliche Schadensersatzpflichten ohne Vertrag? JuS 22(1):637–654

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1988) Entwicklungen und Entwicklungstendenzen im Recht der Verkehrs (sicherungs) pflichten. JuS 28(1):169–174

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1999c) Das deutsche Deliktsrecht in gemeineuropäischer Perspektive. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2000b) Moderne Deliktsrechtspflege in den Zwängen einer wilhelminischen Kodifikation. In: Canaris CW, Heldrich A (eds) 50 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2001a) Konturen des Deliktsrechtskonzeptes der Study Group on a European Civil Code. Ein Werkstattbericht. ZEuP (9):515–532

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (ed) (2009c) Principles of European law on non-contractual liability arising out of damage to another. PEL Liab. Dam. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2009d) Ein “Werkzeugkasten” für das europäische Privatrecht? In: von Bar C (ed) Recht und Wirtschaft. Carl Heymanns, Cologne, pp 49–62

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2014a) Privatrecht europäisch denken! JZ 69(1):473–479

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C, Drobnig U (2004) The interaction of contract law and tort and property law in Europe. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C, Markesinis BS (1981) Richterliche Rechtspolitik im Haftungsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • von Caemmerer E (1965) Das Problem des Drittschadensersatzes. ZHR 127(1):241–279

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • von Lillienskiold M (1975) Aktuelle Probleme des portugiesischen Delikts- und Schadensersatzrechts. Ing. H. O. Hövelborn, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss KU (1987) Fahrlässiges Delikt und reiner Vermögensschaden - Haftungsgrenzen in der deutschen, anglo-amerikanischen und niederländischen Praxis. Karl Ulrich Voss, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetterstein P (2001) Compensation for pure economic loss in Finnish tort law. ScanStudL 41(1):565–580

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilburg W (1941) Die Elemente des Schadensrechts. Elwert, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilburg W (1964) Zusammenspiel der Kräfte im Aufbau des Schuldrechts. AcP 163(4):346–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson AB, Forte AD (1985) Pure economic loss - A Scottish perspective. J.Rev 30(1):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Windelen G (1996) Das Haftungsinteresse: Einfallstor für den Ersatz von Drittschäden? Pro Universitate, Sinzheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Winfield PH, Jolowicz JA, Peel E, Goudkamp J (2014) Winfield & Jolowicz on tort, 19th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Würthwein S (2001) Schadensersatz für Verlust der Nutzungsmöglichkeit einer Sache oder für entgangene Gebrauchsvorteile? Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

    Marta Santos Silva

Authors
  1. Marta Santos Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation