Some Structural Questions on the Relationship Between Contractual and Extracontractual Liability in the New Hungarian Civil Code

  • Ádám FuglinszkyEmail author
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 63)


The new Hungarian Civil Code turns the contractual liability regime upside down. First, the fault based liability for breach of (onerous) contracts has been replaced by a strict liability according to Article 79 CISG. Second, the foreseeability limitation on consequential damages and loss of profit has been implemented in line with Article 74 CISG. Third, the new regime has been topped by the exclusion of parallel damage claims in tort (if the breach of contract qualifies simultaneously as wrongful or tortious conduct), i.e. Non-Cumul, the French approach of an exclusionary relationship between contract and tort, has been introduced. This Chapter reports briefly on all three pillars of the reform but focuses primarily on the third one. Besides the reasons for Non-Cumul, its outcome in the new Hungarian Civil Code, as well as its effects and side-effects, will be analysed. Beyond some general questions at a structural level on the relationship between contractual and extracontractual liability, the predictable difficulties of distinction and qualification and also the inequitable differences between the damage claims asserted by a party to the contract and by third parties are dealt with.


Hungarian Civil Code Contractual Liability Fault-based Liability Strict Liability Liability Regime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Cardi, W. Jonathan. 2004–2005. Reconstructing Foreseeability. Boston College Law Review 46:921–988.Google Scholar
  2. Eidenmüller, Horst, Jansen, Nils, Kieninger, Eva-Maria, Wagner, Gerhard, and Zimmermann, Reinhard. 2012. The Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law: Deficits of the Most Recent Textual Layer of European Contract Law. Edinburgh Law Review 16:301–357.Google Scholar
  3. Eörsi Gyula. 1962. Elhatárolási problémák az anyagi felelősség körében [Problems of Distinction in Material Liability]. Budapest: Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
  4. Fuglinszky Ádám. 2011. 339. §. In A Polgári Törvénykönyvről szóló 1959. évi IV. törvény magyarázata, II. kötet [Commentary on Act No. IV/1959 on the Civil Code, Vol. 2], ed. András Osztovits, 1261–1278. Budapest: Opten.Google Scholar
  5. Fuglinszky Ádám. 2015. The Reform of Contractual Liability in the New Hungarian Civil Code: Strict Liability and Foreseeability Clause as Legal Transplants. Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht 79:72–116.Google Scholar
  6. Garoupa, Nuno, and Ligüerre, Carlos Gómez. 2011. The Syndrome of the Efficiency of the Common Law. Boston University International Law Journal 29:287–335.Google Scholar
  7. Hilley, E. Byron. 1956. The Interrelationship of Tort and Contract in French Law. Journal of Public Law 5:116–147.Google Scholar
  8. Hutchinson, Dale, and Van Heerden, Belinda. 1997. The tort/contract divide seen from the South African perspective. Acta Juridica 1997:97–120.Google Scholar
  9. Kemenes István. 2017. A kontraktuális kártérítés egyes kérdései [Some Questions on Contractual Liability]. Magyar Jog LXIV/1:1–10.Google Scholar
  10. Lando, Ole. 2009. Foreseeability and Remoteness of Damages in Contract in the DCFR. European Review of Private Law 4:619–639.Google Scholar
  11. Litvinoff, Saul. 1999. Contract, Delict, Morals and Law. Loyola Law Review 45:1–54.Google Scholar
  12. McDowell, Banks. 1985–1986. Foreseeability in Contract and Tort: the Problems of Responsibility and Remoteness. Case Western Reserve Law Review 36:286–325.Google Scholar
  13. N.N. 2013. Reasons to Act No. V./2013 on the Civil Code (referred to as Reasons), available a.o. in Complex online law (Member of the Wolteres Kluwer group).Google Scholar
  14. Ogus, Antony. 2004. What Legal Scholars Can Learn from Law and Economics. Chicago-Kent Law Review 79:383–401.Google Scholar
  15. Pusztahelyi Réka. 2016. Igényhalmazatok a szerződésszegési jogkövetkezmények rendszerében, különös tekintettel a Ptk. 6:145. §-ára [Cumulated Claims in the System of the Breach of the Contract’s Consequences, with Special Regard to Section 6:145 HCC]. Pro Futuro 5/2:60–78.Google Scholar
  16. Schlechtriem, Peter. 1972. Vertragsordnung und außervertragliche Haftung. Frankfurt am Main: Alfred Metzner.Google Scholar
  17. van Rossum, Madeleine. 1995. Concurrency of Contractual and Delictual Liability in a European Perspective. European Review of Private Law 4:539–559.Google Scholar
  18. Vékás Lajos (ed.). 2013. A polgári Törvénykönyv magyarázatokkal [The Civil Code with Commentaries]. Budapest: Complex.Google Scholar
  19. Vékás Lajos. 2010. About Contract Law in the New Hungarian Civil Code. European Review of Contract Law 6:1:95–102.Google Scholar
  20. Viney, Geneviéve. 1993–1994. Pour une interpretation modérée et raisonnée du refus d’option entre responsabilité contractuelle et responasbilité délictuelle (article 1458, deuxième aliéna du Code Civil du Québec). McGill Law Journal 39:813–827.Google Scholar
  21. Whittaker, Simon. 1995. Privity of Contract and the Law of Tort: the French Experience. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 15:327–370.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Law DepartmentELTE Eötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations