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).

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.”

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.

1. The historical origins of the trust

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
JE Penner
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The Core ◽  
Administrative Power ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Historical Origins

Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. This chapter traces the historical roots of the trust. The law of trusts is the offspring of a certain English legal creature known as ‘equity’. Equity arose out of the administrative power of the medieval Chancellor, who was at the time the King’s most powerful minister. The nature of equity’s jurisdiction and its ability to provide remedies unavailable at common law, the relationship between equity and the common law and the ‘fusion’ of law and equity, and equity’s creation of the use, and then the trust, are discussed.

Markesinis & Deakin's Tort Law

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Zoe Adams
Keyword(s):  
Deep Understanding ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Economic Context ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Economic Perspectives ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
8Th Edition

Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law, now in its 8th edition, provides a general overview of the law and discussion of the academic debates on all major topics, highlighting the relationship between the common law, legislation, and judicial policy. In addition, the book provides a variety of comparative and economic perspectives on the law of tort and its likely development, always placing the subject in its socio-economic context, thereby giving students a deep understanding of tort law. The book is composed of eight parts. Part I starts by setting the scene, Part II looks at the tort of negligence. Part III turns to special forms of negligence. This is followed by Part IV which examines interference with the person. Part V turns to intentional interferences with economic interests. The next part looks at stricter forms of liability. Part VII examines the protection of human dignity which includes looking at defamation and injurious falsehood, and human privacy. The last part looks at defences and remedies.

14. Deceit

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Angus Johnston ◽  
Basil Markesinis
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
False Statement ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Common ◽  
Modern Form

This chapter discusses the tort of deceit. The common-law rules concerning liability for dishonesty were synthesised to create the tort of deceit at the end of the eighteenth century in Pasley v. Freeman, and the tort takes its modern form from the decision of the House of Lords in Derry v. Peek in 1889. Most of the cases concern non-physical damage, that is to say, financial or pure economic loss, although the tort can also extend to cover personal injuries and damage to property. The requirements of liability are as follows: the defendant must make a false statement of existing fact with knowledge of its falsity and with the intention that the claimant should act on it, with the result (4) that the claimant acts on it to his detriment.

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.

Negligence and defective buildings: demolishing the foundations of Anns?

Legal Studies ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianne Giles ◽  
Erika Szyszczak
Keyword(s):  
Product Liability ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
New Type ◽  
The Law ◽  
Tort Claims

It was generally accepted that the House of Lords in Anns v Merton LBC introduced an ‘entirely new type of product liability’ into the law of tort by expanding liability in negligence in relation to the construction of defective buildings. The novelty of the action was to introduce liability in tort for the construction of the defective product itself and to allow a claim for economic loss resulting from the defect. The consequence was to blur some of the traditional boundaries between contract and tort claims and to cause controversy in relation to the nature of the allowable loss recoverable from the negligent act. In particular it led to the question of whether such claims fell into the category of ‘pure economic loss’: a loss not easily accepted in conventional tort jurisprudence.

Distinguishing between property damage and pure economic loss in negligence: a personality thesis

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 481-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
The Self ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Law

The law of negligence favours redress for damage to property interests over redress for damage to mere economic interests. The question arises whether this preference can be justified. In endeavouring to answer it, the author surveys existing reasons given by courts and commentators for maintaining a distinction between property and economic interests. Each of these reasons, which collectively focus upon the ‘problematic’ nature of economic losses, is found to be either ad hoe in nature or without substantial explanatory power. However, it is submitted that the distinction is explicable on the basis that, whereas an individual's personality is partly constituted by the property that he or she owns, so that property can be seen as essential to the ways in which individuals constitute and define themselves, no such claim can be made with respect to mere abstract holdings of wealth. Although wealth permits the acquisition of property and participation in activities and experiences which might help to constitute and define the self in the future, the very fact that wealth has not been transposed into these things precludes it from being considered as important as actual holdings of property. The protection of property interests ought, therefore, to precede the protection of mere economic interests.

‘Furiously Mad’: Vagrancy Law and a Sub-Group of the Disorderly Poor

Rural History ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
AUDREY ECCLES
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Social Problem ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Medical Texts ◽  
The Public ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

Abstract:Madness has been a social problem from time immemorial. Wealthy lunatics were made royal wards so that their estates would be looked after, and the common law very early admitted madness and idiocy as conditions justifying the exemption of the sufferer from punishments for crime. But the vast majority of lunatics have never been either criminal or wealthy, and many wandered about begging, unwelcome in any settled community. Finally, in the eighteenth century, the law made some attempt to determine a course of action which would protect the public and theoretically also the lunatic. This legislation and its application in practice to protect the public, contain the lunatic, and deal with the nuisance caused by those ‘disordered in their senses’, form the subject of this article. Much has been written about the development of psychiatry, mainly from contemporary medical texts, and about the treatment of lunatics in institutions, chiefly from nineteenth-century sources, but much remains to be discovered from archival sources about the practicalities of dealing with lunatics at parish level, particularly how they were defined as lunatics, who made such decisions, and how they were treated in homes and workhouses.

scholarly journals On specificity of the literary-jargonizing type of speech culture in newspaper texts

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Olga Sokolova
Keyword(s):  
Mass Media ◽  
Linguistic Research ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Professional Degree ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
Creative Style ◽  
Unique Style ◽  
Linguistic Units ◽  
Distinguishing Features

This article analyzes the newspaper texts from the perspective of specificity of manifestation of the literary jargonizing type of speech culture – one of the relevant tasks of modern speech studies, substantiated by the state of modern journalism and linguistic problems of mass media. This paper complements a range of linguistic research that determine the attributes of the types of speech culture. The object of this article is the journalistic speech of the popular weekly newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, the linguistic peculiarities of which (intentional inclusion in the texts of colloquialisms and jargon elements) are substantiated by the thematic orientation of publications. The subject of this article is the texts of articles written by the correspondent A. Meshkov in their ration with the specificity of manifestation of the markers of literary-jargonizing type of speech culture. Special attention is given to the peculiarities of creative style of the journalist, which allow tracing the goals of jargonization of the own speech. The analysis of speech culture of A. Meshkov is based on the anthropocentric approach, as well as linguostylistic, communicative and discursive methods of modern Russian studies. The conclusion is made that the literary-jargonizing type cannot have an unambiguous assessment, since it characterizes different types of the users of jargon speech. The novelty of the study consists in the attempt to extend the boundaries of literary-jargonizing type by determining two variations with the common and distinguishing features. Analysis of the articles authored by A. Meshkov allows attributing his speech culture to the second type of literary jargonization, which is characterized by appropriateness and expediency of using extraliterary linguistic units for delivering the author’s message, professional degree, experience, creative individuality, and unique style.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document