Comparison of Tort Law Systems from the Perspective of Economic Efficiency: Brazilian Civil Code, Principles of European Law and Restatements of the Law

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugenio Battesini
Keyword(s):  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
European Law ◽  
The Law

Law of Torts

Japanese Law ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 191-211
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Oda
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
The Law ◽  
General Provision

Tort is part of the Law of Obligations. Provisions on tort liability are found in Book Three, the Law of Obligations, of the Civil Code. There is only a single general provision on tort. The legislature expected rules to develop out of case law. A person who intentionally or negligently infringes upon others’ right or interests protected There is a body of case law which sets out details of tort law such as causation and fault. There have been cases where the shift of the burden of proof was at issue.　

Compulsory Portion in Hungary

2020 ◽  
pp. 345-365
Author(s):  
Lajos Vékás
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Property Law ◽  
European Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Deceased Person ◽  
The Family ◽  
Matrimonial Property Law ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law

Following the model of continental European law, Hungarian law introduced the compulsory portion in 1853, allowing in the closest blood-relatives to benefit from the estate of a deceased person against the testator’s wishes. In the course of the latest reform, the possible abolition (or at least limitation) of the compulsory portion was raised. However, at the time of the creation of the Civil Code of 2013 the legislator took the view that the compulsory portion had already taken root in the general legal awareness of the population and that its continuation could be justified. This view was strengthened by the fact that the majority of contemporary continental legal systems, in their quest for the protection of the family, tend to recognize a claim by the closest relatives to a compulsory portion. Traditionally in Hungarian law, the descendants and parents of the deceased were entitled to a compulsory portion in accordance with the order of intestate succession. Only since 1960 has the law also recognized the spouse as a person entitled to a compulsory portion. Previously the approach was that the spouse should be compensated through the rules of matrimonial property law and intestate succession. Since 2009 registered partners have been put in the same position as a spouse. Until 2014, the extent of the compulsory portion was one-half of the intestate share of the person entitled to a compulsory portion; today it is one-third.

New Rules of Breach of Contract in Germany

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 333-356
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
European Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen ◽  
The Law ◽  
Limitation Of Actions ◽  
Ec Law ◽  
Legislative Measures ◽  
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch

In 2001 the German legislator passed a law for the ‘Modernisation of the Law of Obligations’ (Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz—SMG). It encompassed new rules on breach of contract, a wholly new law of limitation of actions and new provisions for contracts of sale, contracts for services and loan. By the same Act the existing statute on standard contracts (Gesetz über Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen) and various other statutes for the protection of consumers were integrated into the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch—BGB). It was the most extensive amendment of the BGB since its enactment in 1900. Many of the legislative measures bundled together in the SMG had an EC-law background. We shall here consider only one aspect of the reform statute, namely the new rules on breach of contract and their relationship with European law.

New Rules of Breach of Contract in Germany

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 333-356
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
European Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen ◽  
The Law ◽  
Limitation Of Actions ◽  
Ec Law ◽  
Legislative Measures ◽  
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch

In 2001 the German legislator passed a law for the ‘Modernisation of the Law of Obligations’ (Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz—SMG). It encompassed new rules on breach of contract, a wholly new law of limitation of actions and new provisions for contracts of sale, contracts for services and loan. By the same Act the existing statute on standard contracts (Gesetz über Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen) and various other statutes for the protection of consumers were integrated into the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch—BGB). It was the most extensive amendment of the BGB since its enactment in 1900. Many of the legislative measures bundled together in the SMG had an EC-law background. We shall here consider only one aspect of the reform statute, namely the new rules on breach of contract and their relationship with European law.

CODIFYING TORT LAW: LESSONS FROM THE PROPOSALS FOR REFORM OF THE FRENCH CIVIL CODE

2008 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 561-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Private Law ◽  
European Level ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis article deals with a topic at the heart of modern comparative law: codification of private law on a national and European level. It offers a critical assessment of the recent French attempt to redraft the obligations provisions of its civil code, focusing on the revisions to the law of tort or delict. There has been little analysis of these provisions within or outside France. This article examines the key changes proposed and identifies the implications in terms of tort policy.

Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

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.

scholarly journals CODIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, RESTATEMENT? HOW BEST TO SYSTEMISE THE MODERN LAW OF TORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-305
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Law ◽  
Codal Provisions ◽  
Code Civil

AbstractThe law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.

KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA APABILA TERJADI SENGKETA WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dija Hedistira ◽  
' Pujiyono
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to analyze the ownership and mastery of a fiduciary collateral object, in cases that often occur today, many disputes between creditors and debtors in fiduciary collateral agreements are caused because creditors assume that with executive rights as fiduciary recipients, the fiduciary collateral object legally owned by creditors and creditors the right to take and sell fiduciary collateral objects when the debtor defaults unilaterally, as well as the debtor who considers that the fiduciary collateral object is owned by him because the object is registered on his name, so that the debtor can use the object free as  giving to a third party or selling the object of fiduciary guarantee unilaterally. the author uses a normative <br />juridical approach, and deductive analysis method based on the Civil Code and fiduciary law applicable in Indonesia, Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The conclusion of the discussion is the ownership of the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee is owned by the debtor in accordance with the Law, mastery of the object of collateral controlled by the debtor for economic benefits, the procedure of execution The object of Fiduciary Guarantee is carried out in accordance with the Fiduciary Guarantee Act, an alternative mediation in resolving the dispute. There needs to be clarity in the use of language in making a law, so as not to conflict with each other between Article one and the other Articles.<br />Keywords: Ownership; Mastery; Object of Fiduciary Guarantee; Debtor; Creditors.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang kepemilikan dan penguasaan suatu objek jaminan fidusia, dalam kasus yang saat ini sering terjadi, banyak sengketa antara kreditur dan debitur dalam perjanjian jaminan fidusia disebabkan karena kreditur beranggapan bahwa dengan adanya hak eksekutorial sebagai penerima fidusia, maka objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sah dimiliki oleh kreditur dan kreditur berhak mengambil dan menjual objek jaminan fidusia saat debitur cidera janji<br />(wanprestasi) secara sepihak, begitupun dengan debitur yang menganggap bahwa objek jaminan fidusia tersebut dimiliki olehnya karena objek tersebut terdaftar atas namannya, sehingga debitur dapat mempergunakan objek tersebut secara bebas seperti menyerahkan kepada pihak ketiga atau menjual objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sepihak. penulis menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan metode analisis deduktif yang didasarkan pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata<br />dan hukum jaminan fidusia yang berlaku di Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kesimpulan pembahasan adalah Kepemilikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia dimiliki oleh debitur sesuai Undang-undang, penguasaan objek jaminan dikuasai debitur untuk manfaat ekonomis, prosedur eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia, alternatif secara mediasi dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi. Perlu ada kejelasan dalam<br />penggunaan bahasa pada pembuatan suatu Undang-Undang, agar tidak saling bertentangan antar Pasal satu dengan Pasal yang lainnya. <br />Kata Kunci: Kepemilikan; Penguasaan; Objek Jaminan Fidusia; Debitur; Kreditur.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document