Privity

2020 ◽  
pp. 480-496
Author(s):  
Mark P. Gergen
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Law ◽  
Negligence Law

This chapter discusses privity rules. Privity rules in contract law prevented obligations created by a contract from protruding on third parties, while privity rules in tort law prevented obligations to third parties that might otherwise be imposed by tort law from “indenting” upon a contract. Contract no longer is an impregnable circle of obligation. But contract law still has a privity requirement that prevents a contract from protruding negatively on nonparties. Meanwhile, in tort law, the function of preventing negligence law from indenting upon a contract has devolved to rules that preclude a negligence claim for pure economic loss. Moreover, there are rules in property law and the law of restitution that perform the same functions as the old privity rules in contract law and negligence. These include bona fide purchaser rules in property law and rules in the law of restitution that preclude claims for indirect enrichment and that preserve the priority of contract as a mechanism for resolving problems of unjust enrichment.

1. Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Jack Beatson ◽  
Andrew Burrows ◽  
John Cartwright
Keyword(s):  
Contract Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Different Types ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
And Function

This introductory chapter first considers the nature and function of contract. It then discusses the contractual obligations in English law; the content of the contract law as set out in this book, which is concerned with the ‘general principles’ of contract rather than the detailed rules applicable to different types of contracts; the location of contract as part of the law of obligations and its relation to other parts of the law of obligations, tort and restitution of an unjust enrichment, and property law.

Liability of the State and Public Authorities in Israel and South Africa

2013 ◽  
pp. 1-47
Author(s):  
Max Loubser ◽  
Tamar Gidron
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
The South ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
The Law

Both the Israeli and the South African legal systems are classified as mixed legal systems, or mixed jurisdictions. In Israel, tort law was originally pure English common law, adopted by legislation and later developed judicially. In South Africa, the law of delict (tort) was originally Roman-Dutch but was later strongly influenced by the English common law. Under both systems, tort law is characterized by open-ended norms allowing extensive judicial development. This paper traces and compares the structural basis, methodology, policy, and trends of the judicial development of state and public-authority liability in the Israeli and South African jurisdictions. Specific factors that have impacted the development of state- and public-authority liability are: (1) constitutional values, (2) the courts’ recognition of the need for expanded protection of fundamental human rights and activism towards achieving such protection, (3) the multicultural nature of the societies, (4) problems of crime and security, and (5) worldwide trends, linked to consumerism, toward the widening of liability of the state and public authorities.Within essentially similar conceptual structures the South African courts have been much more conservative in their approach to state liability for pure economic loss than their Israeli counterparts. This can perhaps be attributed to a sense of priorities. In a developing country with huge disparities in wealth, the courts would naturally be inclined to prioritize safety and security of persons above pure economic loss. The South African courts have been similarly more conservative in cases involving administrative negligence and evidential loss.The development of the law on state and public-authority liability in Israel and South Africa is also the product of factors such as the levels of education, the effectiveness of the public service, and the history and pervasiveness of constitutional ordering. Despite important differences, the law in the two jurisdictions has developed from a broadly similar mixed background; the courts have adopted broadly similar methods and reasoning; and the outcomes show broadly similar trends.

Tony Weir and the Law of Tort

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-77
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
The Law

AbstractTony Weir was a leading figure in UK tort law who sadly passed away in December 2011. This paper examines his lasting contribution to English tort law as a scholar unafraid to speak his mind and whose incisive commentaries continue to be read by students and Supreme Court justices alike. It will focus on two areas in which Weir’s contribution was particularly significant: the treatment of claims for negligently-incurred pure economic loss and the degree to which tort law should provide a remedy for injuries resulting from risks which individuals have freely incurred. Weir’s contribution was distinctive and forcefully argued, encouraging his audience to reflect on the policy choices underlying any system of tort law.

scholarly journals THE FAILURE OF UNIVERSAL THEORIES OF TORT LAW

Legal Theory ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Goudkamp ◽  
John Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Corrective Justice ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Lack Of Fit ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

ABSTRACTMany scholars have offered theories that purport to explain the whole of the law of torts. At least some of these theories do not seem to be specific to a single jurisdiction. Several appear to endeavor to account for tort law in at least the major common law jurisdictions or even throughout the common law world. These include Ernest Weinrib's corrective justice theory, Robert Stevens's rights theory, and Richard Posner's economic theory. This article begins by explaining why it is appropriate to understand these three theories as universal theories of tort law and why it is important that they be so understood. This explanation draws upon various overt claims (or other strong intimations) made by the theorists themselves to the effect that this is how their respective accounts should be understood. The article then proceeds to test these theories, all of which are leading accounts of tort law, against the evidence in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The parts of tort law on which we focus are (1) the breach element of the action in negligence, (2) the law that determines when a duty of care will be owed in respect of pure economic loss, (3) the law that governs the availability of punitive damages, (4) the defense of illegality, and (5) the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher and its descendants. The article concludes that none of the theories is a satisfactory universal account of tort law. All of them suffer from significant problems of fit in that they cannot accommodate (often even approximately) the areas of law that we discuss. Although each of the theories contains a great many valuable insights, they all nonetheless fall well short of accomplishing that which they are held out as providing. In the course of this analysis, the article explains why this is an appropriate line of criticism and identifies the degree of lack of fit that we regard as being “significant.”

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties in Japan

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masami Okino
Keyword(s):  
Case Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
German Model ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on third party beneficiaries in Japan; mostly characterized by adherence to the German model that still bears an imprint on Japanese contract law. Thus, there is neither a doctrine of consideration nor any other justification for a general doctrine of privity, and contracts for the benefit of third parties are generally enforceable as a matter of course. Whether an enforceable right on the part of a third party is created is simply a matter of interpretation of the contract which is always made on a case-by-case analysis but there are a number of typical scenarios where the courts normally find the existence (or non-existence) of a contract for the benefit of a third party. In the recent debate on reform of Japanese contract law, wide-ranging suggestions were made for revision of the provisions on contracts for the benefit of third parties in the Japanese Civil Code. However, it turned out that reform in this area was confined to a very limited codification of established case law.

Classifying precontractual liability: a comparative analysis

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim Dietrich
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Initial Focus

The common law has solved questions of liability arising in the context of precontractual negotiations by resort to a range of different doctrines and approaches, adopting in effect ‘piecemeal’ solutions to questions of precontractual liability. Consequently, debate has arisen as to how best to classify or categorise claims for precontractual work and as to which doctrines are best suited to solving problems arising from anticipated contracts. The purpose of this article is to consider this question of how best to classify (cases of) precontractual liability. The initial focus will be on the ongoing debate as to whether principles of contract law or principles of unjust enrichment can better solve problems of precontractual liability. I will be suggesting that unjust enrichment theory offers little by way of explanation of cases of precontractual liability and, indeed, draws on principles of contract law in determining questions of liability for precontractual services rendered, though it does so by formulating those principles under different guises. Irrespective, however, of the doctrines utilised by the common law to impose liability, it is possible to identify a number of common elements unifying all cases of precontractual liability. In identifying such common elements of liability, it is necessary to draw on principles of both contract and tort law. How, then, should cases of precontractual liability best be classified? A consideration of the issue of classification of precontractual liability from a perspective of German civil law will demonstrate that a better understanding of cases of precontractual liability will be gained by classifying such cases as lying between the existing categories of contract and tort.

scholarly journals Tortious liability for pure economic loss

1979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ευστάθιος Μπανάκας
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Comparative Examination ◽  
Individual Style

Financial harm may be caused in many different ways. It can be said that it appears in several different ’’types", each produced in distinct factual circumstances. Different "types" of financial harm may demand a different treatment by the law. The considerations that ought to determine the policy of the law vary together with the factual . circumstances, in which each particular type offinancial harm becomes manifested. Thence the need for a separate examination of the major, or "generic", types of such harm, a need that has already been - detected by Comparative lawyers writing on the subject.(20) The present study will concentrate on the problem ' of financial harm that is not the product of a harmful intention (21) . In the Common Law of Negligence this problem is known as the "pure economic loss" problem. The solutions given to it by English Law are compared to the solutions of the French Law of Torts, and to those of the law of Torts of the German Federal Republic (West Germany)(22). The compared Tort systems not only are leadingthe major legal traditions of our age, each employing its own individual "style" (23), but, also, operate in virtually similar social and economic environments. This should allow the comparison to expose more easily the true merits of any "stylistic" idiosyncrasies, thatthey might possess in this particular connection. The problem of pure economic, loss caused by erroneous advice or information is not examined in * detail in the present study. It has been already the subject of comprehensive Comparative examination (24).

Introduction

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Cooter ◽  
Ariel Porat
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Cost

This book examines how the law of torts, contracts, and restitution can be improved by showing how private law reduces the cost of accidents, lubricates bargains, and encourages unrequested benefits. It considers the two pervasive rules of tort law that provide incentives for actors to reduce accident costs: strict liability and negligence. It also explains how contract law achieves effiency through the remedy of damages and how restitution law allows benefactors to recover gains that their beneficiaries wrongfully obtained from them. The book makes three central claims: misalignments in tort law should be removed; in contract law, promisee's incentives should be improved; and the law should recognize some right of compensation for those who produce unrequested benefits. Each claim is based on the desire to reform private law and to make it more effective in promoting social welfare.

Personalized Legal Areas

2021 ◽  
pp. 61-84
Author(s):  
Omri Ben-Shahar ◽  
Ariel Porat
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter illustrates personalized law “in action” by examining it in three areas of the law: standards of care under the common law tort doctrine of negligence, mandated consumer protections in contract law, and criminal sanctions. In each area, the chapter examines personalization of commands along several dimensions. In tort law, standards of care could vary according to each injurer’s riskiness and skill, to reduce the costs of accidents. In contract law, mandatory protections could vary according to the value they provide each consumer and differential cost they impose on firms, to allocate protections where, and only where, they are justified. And in criminal law, sanctions would be set based on what it takes to deter criminals, accounting for how perpetrators differ in their motives and likelihood of being apprehended, with the potential to reduce unnecessary harsh penalties.

11. The Tort of Negligence

2019 ◽  
pp. 299-334
Author(s):  
Lucy Jones
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference

This chapter discusses the difference between the law of torts and contract and criminal law. It explores the tort of negligence, considering the necessary elements for a claim of negligence, namely the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty of care, and reasonably foreseeable damage was caused by the breach of duty. The chapter considers the special requirements for the recovery of pure economic loss and for loss as a result of psychiatric injuries, looking at both primary and secondary victims. The principles relating to breach of a duty of care, including the standard of care, are discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the final element, considering the need for a causal link between the breach of duty by the defendant and the damage suffered by the claimant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document