Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

§ 7 Reception of the DCFR’s Concept of “Legally Relevant Damage” and Its Potential for the Protection of Pure Economic Interests

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

  • 334 Accesses

Abstract

The contents of the DCFR comply with the scheme set out by the European Commission, which asked for the development of a uniform European legal terminology. Indeed, the DCFR includes a list of definitions which are part of the “toolbox” function and serve as suggestions for European legislators.

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.

    For details see Tit. § 3, Subtit. II, Sec. 2 above.

  2. 2.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 387.

  3. 3.

    Cf. von Bar (2010a), p. 214. See generally von Bar (2011b).

  4. 4.

    von Bar (1999a), p. 214.

  5. 5.

    von Bar (2010a), p. 214. That is the case for the concept of Schade in § 1293(1) ABGB and the concept present in several other European legal systems as well (von Bar 1999b, p. 23, with comparative reference in the footnote).

  6. 6.

    von Bar (2010a), p. 214; von Bar (2011b), p. 392.

  7. 7.

    von Bar (2008c), p. 36; von Bar (2011b), pp. 389–390. See also Carneiro da Frada (2006), p. 89 ff.; Hollander (2012), p. 256.

  8. 8.

    von Bar (2009c), n. III35 to VI.–1.103, p. 299; von Bar (2010a), p. 214 f.

  9. 9.

    von Bar (2008c), p. 36. For details see von Bar (1999c), p. 25 ff., in particular p. 27.

  10. 10.

    von Bar (2002b), p. 70.

  11. 11.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 523; von Bar (2002a), p. 176; Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 86; von Bar (2011b), p. 389.

  12. 12.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 388.

  13. 13.

    ibid., p. 389. See also von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 29, n. 46.

  14. 14.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 396.

  15. 15.

    Some legal commentators highlight the lack of concrete utility of the definitions in VI.–2:101.

  16. 16.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 181.

  17. 17.

    VI.–9:501(2), lit. a.

  18. 18.

    See von Bar (2009c), n. F25 to VI.–2:101, p. 313.

  19. 19.

    von Bar (2009c), n. F24 to VI.–2:101, p. 312.

  20. 20.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 188; von Bar (2011b), p. 396.VI.–6:101(1) reads: “Reparation is to reinstate the person suffering the legally relevant damage to the position that person would have been in had the legally relevant damage not occurred”.

  21. 21.

    Schlechtriem (1997), p. 244; Wagner (2009), p. 263. See also Winiger et al. (2011), pp. 35–36. For details see Menezes Leitão (2013), pp. 363–364.

  22. 22.

    Hohloch (1981), p. 395.

  23. 23.

    According to difference theory , while assessing damage, courts must calculate the “difference” or id quod interest (as the legal scholars of the Corpus Iuris Civilis called it) or Interesse (Hohloch 1981, p. 395) between the real situation (realer Zustand) and the hypothetical situation (hypothetischer Zustand) of the assets (património) of the person on whom the harm was inflicted, i.e. the situation which would exist if it was not changed by the event giving rise to liability, at the point just before the event (Mommsen 1855, p. 4 apud Escher-Weingart 1993, p. 34). See also Lange and Schiemann (2003), pp. 27–28 and 43–44; Hohloch (1981), p. 395; Magnus (2001a), p. 191; Magnus (2001b), pp. 94 and 96. Many legal scholars seem to refer to this theory while attempting to define “damage”. See Deutsch (1976), p. 419; Larenz (1987), p. 426; Schlechtriem (1997), p. 244. Others, however, see it more as a method of assessing damage rather than defining it. See Magnus (2001a), p. 191. The relationship between this theory and the definition of Schaden thus remains unclear (Escher-Weingart 1993, p. 40). § 249 BGB is considered to allude to the Differenzhypothese (Hohloch 1981, p. 396), although it is also mentioned that “Mommsen’s ‘differential’ concept of damage has been seriously damaged by the more modern theory of ‘normative’ damage” (Banakas 1996, p. 20). In the Portuguese legal scholarship , see Coelho dos Santos, RPDC 3 (1994), p. 75; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 599 and Sinde Monteiro and Veloso (2001), p. 179.

  24. 24.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 595−596.

  25. 25.

    von Bar (2009c), n. F24 to VI.–2:101, p. 312.

  26. 26.

    For this discussion, with examples, see von Bar (2011b), p. 396.

  27. 27.

    von Bar (2008c), p. 36.

  28. 28.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 390.

  29. 29.

    von Bar (2009c), n. A18 to VI.–2:201, p. 364.

  30. 30.

    von Bar (2009c), nn. A18 and A19 to VI.–2:201, p. 364.

  31. 31.

    See Tit. § 5, Subtit. III, Sec. 3, Subsec. dd (2) above.

  32. 32.

    “Non-economic loss ” is defined in the annex to the DCFR (von Bar et al. 2008, p. 559). For a discussion of the terminology see von Bar (2011b), p. 397.

  33. 33.

    von Bar (2009c), n. F30 to VI.–2:101, p. 314.

  34. 34.

    The drafters recognise that this option may be criticised in respect of policy matters. For details see von Bar (2011b), pp. 390–391.

  35. 35.

    Pinkel (2008), p. 27.

  36. 36.

    See Tit. § 7, Subtit. III, Sec. 1.

  37. 37.

    See von Bar (2009c), n. V49 to VI.–2:202, p. 411.

  38. 38.

    ibid., n. C9 to VI.–2:202, pp. 391–392.

  39. 39.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 524; von Bar (2011b), p. 394. For details see von Bar (2009c), n. I3 to VI.–2:202, 395. See generally Leite de Campos (1987), pp. 5−20.

  40. 40.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 524; von Bar (2010a), p. 215.

  41. 41.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 395 and fn. 20.

  42. 42.

    Koziol (2009), p. 99; Eidenmüller et al. (2008b), p. 539 f.

  43. 43.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 181, fn. 10.

  44. 44.

    ibid., p. 181, fn. 9.

  45. 45.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 389.

  46. 46.

    VI.–2:201(2) lit. b; VI.–3:104(2) lit. a; VI.–3:202(1); VI.–3:203; VI.–3:204(1); VI.–3:205(1); VI.–3:206(1); VI.–4:101(2); VI.–5:401(2) lit. a; VI.–5:501; VI.–6:203(2).

  47. 47.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 389.

  48. 48.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 182.

  49. 49.

    For further details see Tit. § 4, Subtit. IV, Sec. 2, Subsec. bb (3) above.

  50. 50.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 195, with references.

  51. 51.

    Eidenmüller et al. (2008a), pp. 683–684.

  52. 52.

    ibid., p. 684.

  53. 53.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 196.

  54. 54.

    Schmidt-Kessel (2006), pp. 60–68; Brüggemeier (2009a), pp. 193–195. For criticism of this provision, which holds that it goes well beyond the EU Directive on environmental liability see Eidenmüller et al. (2008a), p. 685.

  55. 55.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 390.

  56. 56.

    Magnus (2004b), p. 576, fn. 87.

  57. 57.

    For details on the structure of the rule in the overall Book see von Bar (2001a), p. 526.

  58. 58.

    Such provisions are: VI.–2:201 (Personal injury and consequential loss ); VI.–2:202 (Loss suffered by third persons as a result of another’s personal injury or death ); VI.–2:203 (Infringement of dignity, liberty and privacy); VI.–2:204 (Loss upon communication of incorrect information about another); VI.–2:205 (Loss upon breach of confidence); VI.–2:206 (Loss upon infringement of property or lawful possession ); VI.–2:207 (Loss upon reliance on incorrect advice or information); VI.–2:208 (Loss upon unlawful impairment of business); VI.–2:209 (Burdens incurred by the state upon environmental impairment); VI.–2.210 (Loss upon fraudulent misrepresentation); VI.–2:211 (Loss upon inducement of non-performance of obligation).

  59. 59.

    von Bar (2008c), p. 36; von Bar (2010a), p. 217.

  60. 60.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 524; von Bar (2010a), p. 216. See also von Bar (2009c), Introduction to Chapter 3, n. A7, p. 300.

  61. 61.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 351; von Bar (2010a), p. 215.

  62. 62.

    See Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 182; Oliphant (2011), p. 310. See, for a full list of “torticles”, Rudden (1991−1992), pp. 105−129.

  63. 63.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 525.

  64. 64.

    von Bar (2009c), Introduction to Chapter 2, A2, p. 299. Chapter 5 deals with possible defences . It contains cases traditionally present in the European legal systems under the rubric “grounds for justification” (Rechtfertigungsgründe): “consent [of the victim] and acting at own risk” (VI.–5:101); “damage caused by a criminal to a collaborator” (VI.–5:103); “authority conferred by law” (VI.–5:201); “self-defence, benevolent intervention and necessity” (VI.–5:202); “protection of public interest” (VI.–5:203). To this list the DCFR adds: “Contributory fault and accountability ” (VI.–5:102); “mental incompetence” (VI.–5:301); “event beyond control” (VI.–5:302) and “contractual exclusion and restriction of liability” (VI.–5:401). Further defences may result from Book III (particularly Chap. 7, “Prescription”) and from rules of national law, because “these model rules are silent on issues that permeate the law on extra-contractual liability from other legal quarters”. For possibly applicable defences see von Bar (2009c), n. A3 to VI.–5:101, p. 790. See also von Bar (2008c), p. 37. As for VI.–5:101, it recognises the European-wide legal tradition of reducing or excluding the liability of the person who inflicted the loss whenever the person who sustained the loss contributed with his or her fault to the damage (Magnus 2004b, p. 575).

  65. 65.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 524; von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 2, A3, p. 299.

  66. 66.

    von Bar (2010a), p. 215.

  67. 67.

    Cf. Claeys (2012), pp. 232−233.

  68. 68.

    ibid., p. 233.

  69. 69.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 524; von Bar (2010a), p. 215. For other reasons for this list of particular instances of legally relevant damage see Blackie (2007), pp. 67–68.

  70. 70.

    von Bar (2010a), p. 215.

  71. 71.

    This provision (de minimis rule) translates the solution of the EU systems (von Bar 1999b, p. 30). Some legal commentators argue it would have been better placed in VI.–2:101 (Brüggemeier 2009a, p. 188). Given that “trivial” damage is still “damage” but is irrelevant for the purposes of reparation , its current placement under the chapter related to “Remedies ” thus seems fitting.

  72. 72.

    von Bar (2009c), Introduction to Chapter 2, B9, p. 301.

  73. 73.

    von Bar (2010a), p. 215.

  74. 74.

    ibid.

  75. 75.

    Whenever no restriction is expressly stated, the concept of legally relevant damage maintains the same scope as if it had been caused by negligence or intention (von Bar 2010a, p. 215).

  76. 76.

    Blackie (2007), p. 65.

  77. 77.

    von Bar (2010a), pp. 215 and 217.

  78. 78.

    von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 2, n. A5, p. 300. However, if the conduct of the person inflicting the harm gives rise to more than one legally relevant damage , the claimant will have several claims to reparation or prevention (von Bar 2009c, Intr. to Chap. 2, n. A6, p. 300).

  79. 79.

    VI.–2:201 (“Personal injury and consequential loss ”) provides that: (1) Loss caused to a natural person as a result of injury to his or her body or health and the injury as such are legally relevant damage . (2) In this Book: (a) such 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, and (b) personal injury includes injury to mental health only if it amounts to a medical condition.

  80. 80.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 182.

  81. 81.

    von Bar (2009c), n. B12 to VI.–2:201, p. 362.

  82. 82.

    ibid., n. E23 to VI.–2:101, 312 and n. B10 to VI.–2:201, p. 361 f.

  83. 83.

    STJ 8 September 2009, proc. 2733/06.9TBBCL.S1 and STJ 1 July 2014, proc.6607/09.3TVLSB.L1.S1., respectively.

  84. 84.

    von Bar (2009c), n. C13 to VI.–2:201, p. 363.

  85. 85.

    See generally Araújo Dias (2010)

  86. 86.

    STJ 21 June 1988, proc. JSTJ00011490; STJ 15 May 2004, proc. 04A1549, but see STJ 29 April 2010, proc. 344/04.2GTSTR.S1. Cases where relatives ask for compensation for the value of the domestic work rendered to the victim is different. This has been provided for STJ 4 February 1986, proc. 073433 but the current position held is that no compensation is granted (STJ 10 July 2008, proc. 08A1853).

  87. 87.

    von Bar (2009c), D16 to VI.–2:201, p. 363.

  88. 88.

    ibid., D18 to VI.–2:201, p. 364.

  89. 89.

    ibid. The DCFR provides that claims based upon legal grounds other than non-contractual liability damage remain unaffected and respects the supremacy of other legal fields in such claims (VI.–1:103, lits. a and d, respectively). See von Bar (2001a), p. 531.

  90. 90.

    See § Tit. 5 Subtit. III, Sec. 3, Subsec. aa (3).

  91. 91.

    von Bar (2009c), n. D19 to VI.–2:201, pp. 364–365.

  92. 92.

    ibid., n. D19 to VI.–2:201, p. 364.

  93. 93.

    The Article reads: “(1) Non-economic loss caused to a natural person as a result of another’s personal injury or death is legally relevant damage if at the time of injury that person is in a particular close personal relationship to the injured person . (2) Where a person has been fatally injured: (a) legally relevant damage caused to the deceased on account of the injury at the time of death becomes legally relevant damage to the deceased’s successors; (b) reasonable funeral expenses are legally relevant damage to the person incurring them; and (c) loss of maintenance is legally relevant damage to a natural person whom the deceased maintained or, had death not occurred, would have maintained under statutory provisions, or to whom the deceased provided care and financial support”.

  94. 94.

    von Bar (2009c), n. B6 to VI.–2:202, p. 391.

  95. 95.

    ibid.

  96. 96.

    The STJ recently extended reparation to cases of non-fatal injuries. See Tit. § 4, Subtit. IV, Sec. 2, Subsec. bb (2) above.

  97. 97.

    von Bar (2002a), p. 176; von Bar (2009c), n. C9 to VI.–2:202, pp. 391–392.

  98. 98.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 182, fn. 15; von Bar (2009c), n. B8 to VI.–2:202, p. 391.

  99. 99.

    The relationship of DCFR with the category of pure economic loss will be explained under Tit. § 7, Subtit. IV below.

  100. 100.

    See Magnus (2004b), pp. 576–577.

  101. 101.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 524; von Bar (2010a), p. 216. For details on the non-exhaustive character of the list of legally relevant damage see Swann (2003), pp. 8–9.

  102. 102.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 526; von Bar (2010a), p. 217. Other authors consider that lits. b and c are default rules, instead of VI.–2:201 itself. See Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 181.

  103. 103.

    von Bar (2009c), n. B7 to VI.–2:101, p. 305.

  104. 104.

    ibid., n. D15 to VI.–2:101, p. 308.

  105. 105.

    For examples, see von Bar (2009c), B8 to VI.–2:101, p. 305.

  106. 106.

    Blackie (2007), p. 70.

  107. 107.

    von Bar (2009c), Introduction to Chapter 2, n. A3, p. 299 and n. D15 to VI.–2:101, p. 308.

  108. 108.

    ibid., n. B9 to VI.–2:101, pp. 305–306; n. C11 to VI.–2:101, p. 307.

  109. 109.

    von Bar (2009c), n. C12 to VI.–2:101, p. 307 f.

  110. 110.

    Blackie (2007), pp. 72–73. An exception of VI.–2:211 (von Bar 2009c, n. C13 to VI.–2:101, p. 308).

  111. 111.

    See Tit. § 4, Subtit. IV, Sec. 5, Subsec. c, aa) above.

  112. 112.

    Frank (1979), p. 585.

  113. 113.

    Stoll (1984), p. 26.

  114. 114.

    von Bar (2009c), n. D15 to VI.–2:101, p. 308.

  115. 115.

    Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 230.

  116. 116.

    von Bar (2010a), p. 212.

  117. 117.

    von Bar (2002a), p. 173. See also von Bar (2010a), p. 212.

  118. 118.

    von Bar (2002a), pp. 173–174.

  119. 119.

    von Bar (2010a), p. 214.

  120. 120.

    On the need for non-dogmatic tort law see von Bar (1996a), p. 15 passim.

  121. 121.

    For details see von Bar (2009c), n. E17 to VI.–2:101, p. 309. See also von Bar (1999a), p. 215.

  122. 122.

    Blackie (2007), p. 72; von Bar (2010a), p. 211.

  123. 123.

    von Bar (2009c), n. E18 to VI.–2:101, p. 309 f.

  124. 124.

    ibid., n. E19 to VI.–2:101, p. 310.

  125. 125.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 522. Cf. also Magnus (2004b), p. 566.

  126. 126.

    Blackie (2007), p. 72.

  127. 127.

    von Bar (2009c), n. E21 to VI.–2:101, p. 311, with illustrative examples.

  128. 128.

    Blackie (2007), p. 72.

  129. 129.

    von Bar (2009c), n. E22 to VI.–2:101, p. 311 f.

  130. 130.

    von Bar (1996a), p. 15; von Bar (2009c), n. E23 to VI.–2:101, p. 312.

  131. 131.

    Blackie (2005), p. 137 f.; Blackie (2007), p. 72; Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 181; Claeys (2012), pp. 234−235. Legal commentators have noticed the absence of any mention of the category of duty (Brüggemeier 2009a, p. 182). The fact that “duty of care” is associated with liability for negligent behaviour may be why this concept was not adopted in the DCFR (Blackie 2007, p. 63).

  132. 132.

    Cf. Weir (1999), p. 644; Schulze (2012), p. 226.

  133. 133.

    Lipstein (1963), p. 91; Howarth (2011), p. 846; Claeys (2012), p. 234.

  134. 134.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 181.

  135. 135.

    von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 2, n. A3, p. 299.

  136. 136.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 526; Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 87.

  137. 137.

    von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 2, n. B11, p. 301.

  138. 138.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 197.

  139. 139.

    ibid.; Miranda Barbosa (2015), pp. 226–227. This understanding is reinforced by VI.–6:204 (Miranda Barbosa 2015, pp. 226–227).

  140. 140.

    von Bar (1999f), p. 55; von Bar (2001a), p. 522; von Bar (2011b), p. 393.

  141. 141.

    Royal Edict 16 March 1942, no. 262, which approved the text of the Civil Code (G.U. no. 79 e 79-bis of 4 April 1942, General Ser.).

  142. 142.

    von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 2, n. A4, p. 299. Originally, danno ingiusto was interpreted along similar lines to § 823(1) BGB (von Bar 2002b, p. 68), and it still is by some authors. See Ranieri (2003), p. 1480.

  143. 143.

    von Bar (1999a), p. 214; von Bar (2001a), p. 522; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 597. Cf. also von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 2, n. A4, pp. 299–300.

  144. 144.

    Alpa et al. (1995), p. 135.

  145. 145.

    Franzoni (1993), p. 183 ff. See Gozzi (2006) , pp. 22–23, with case law references in footnote. There used to be a discussion on the meaning of the concept of danno ingiusto. It was argued, for example, that there would be ingiustizia whenever there was no applicable defence (Schlesinger 1960, p. 336 ff.). In cases where there is no defence, the antigiuridicità would be present, but not as a requirement of liability (Castronovo 2006, p. 13 ff.). It was also argued that there would be ingiustizia whenever the infringement of an interest is protected by the legal order (Sacco, Foro Pad., I (1960), p. 1420 ff.; Gozzi 2006, p. 24) or determined in each case by the court (Rodotà 1964, p. 183 ff.). Traditionally, legal scholars understood it to refer to the infringement of subjective rights (Cian 1966, p. 109) but there was no unanimity on this (Sacco, Foro Pad., I (1960), p. 1429 ff.). Other authors considered that danno ingiusto concerned an assessment of the interests present (Trimarchi 2007 , pp. 107–109) or even that it was a synonym for antigiuridicità oggetiva (unlawfulness ) and antigiuridicità soggetiva (fault ). See Cian (1966), p. 109.

  146. 146.

    Cass., Sez. Un. 22 July 1999, no. 500, Foro it. 2000 III, 481; Cass. 17 May 2004, no. 9345, Giust. Civ. Mass. 2004, fasc 5. For details see Gozzi (2006), p. 24.

  147. 147.

    De Cupis (1979), p. 11; Gozzi (2006), pp. 24−25.

  148. 148.

    Trimarchi (2007), p. 109.

  149. 149.

    Rodotà (1964), p. 108.

  150. 150.

    Gozzi (2006), p. 25, with references in footnote. Compared to Art. 483(1) CC, the scope of protection of the danno ingiusto is wider, because, according to the prevailing view, for there to be ingiustizia there is no need for a violation of a subjective right (Castronovo 2006, p. 128) nor for violation of a protective rule (cf. Gozzi 2006, p. 22).

  151. 151.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 522; Blackie (2007), p. 63; von Bar (2002a), p. 175.

  152. 152.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 524; Blackie (2005), p. 142; von Bar (2009c), Introduction to Chapter 2, A1, p. 299; von Bar (2010a), p. 215.

  153. 153.

    von Bar (2010a), p. 215.

  154. 154.

    von Bar (1999b), p. 205; Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 16; von Bar (2010a), p. 212. Thus, the understanding of Menezes Cordeiro—that the category is displaced to here—is unjustified (Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 352).

  155. 155.

    Schulze (2012), p. 224.

  156. 156.

    von Bar (2002b), p. 70; von Bar (2010a), p. 212. For Lipstein, “where formerly the preservation of physical integrity and the protection of land and movable objects against direct interference ranked foremost, today the law of tort is more concerned with (1) indirect violations of the economic potential of the individual and of commercial and industrial enterprises and (2) with the creation of responsibility in respect of an increasing area of dangerous or potentially dangerous activities” (Lipstein 1963, p. 101). Sinde Monteiro, however, considers that the “interests worthy of legal protection ” correspond essentially to absolute subjective rights (Sinde Monteiro 2007, p. 477).

  157. 157.

    von Bar (1999b), pp. 212–213; von Bar (2010a), p. 212 f.

  158. 158.

    For further details on this distinction, see Kötz and Wagner (2013), pp. 55–56.

  159. 159.

    von Bar (2010a), p. 213.

  160. 160.

    von Bar (2000b), p. 612. See also Weir (1999), p. 644. Cf. also von Bar (2009c), n. B9 to VI.–2:101, p. 306.

  161. 161.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 395.

  162. 162.

    von Bar (2002a), p. 173.

  163. 163.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 395.

  164. 164.

    von Bar (2009c), n. B9 to VI.–2:101, p. 306. According to one view, however, the DCFR recognises the violation of statutory provisions as a basis for non-contractual liability in Articles VI.–3:102 and VI.–3:207 (Hollander 2012 , p. 252 ff.).

  165. 165.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 183; Hollander (2012), p. 256.

  166. 166.

    See Tit. § 4, Subtit. IV, Sec. 5 above.

  167. 167.

    Cf. Sinde Monteiro (2007) , p. 477.

  168. 168.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 522; von Bar (2008c), p. 36.

  169. 169.

    “Consequential loss ” is not found in Book VI because a Verletzung is not a requirement of liability on its own. See von Bar (2002b), p. 70.

  170. 170.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 523. In the same sense, van Boom et al. (2004a), p. 202 passim. But see VI.–2:102 PETL, which provides expressly for liability for pure economic loss , although “they occupy a subordinate place in the hierarchy of protected interests” (Oliphant 2011, p. 310).

  171. 171.

    Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 120.

  172. 172.

    van Boom et al. (2004a), p. 202 ff.

  173. 173.

    von Bar (1994b), p. 111; von Bar (2001a), p. 523; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 119; Schmidt-Kessel (2006) , p. 21. Cf. also von Bar (2000b), p. 606.

  174. 174.

    Cf. von Bar (2001a), p. 523. See also Gordley (2003).

  175. 175.

    The only exception to the non-recognition by the PECL of “pure economic loss ” as an autonomous category is a rule on the integration of culpa in contrahendo in the overall system.

  176. 176.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 523. See also von Bar (2002a), p. 178.

  177. 177.

    von Bar (2011b), p. 394.

  178. 178.

    Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 121.

  179. 179.

    Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 182.

  180. 180.

    According to a classification, the full list of provisions is: VI.–2:204 (Loss upon communication of incorrect information about another); VI.–2:205 (Loss upon breach of confidence); VI.–2:207 (Loss upon reliance on incorrect advice or information); VI.–2:208 (Loss upon unlawful impairment of business); VI.–2:209 (Burdens incurred by the state upon environmental impairment); VI.–2:210 (Loss upon fraudulent misrepresentation) and VI.–2:211 (Loss upon inducement of non-performance of obligation). Some legal scholars classify these losses as “economic torts” (Brüggemeier 2009a , p. 182).

  181. 181.

    Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 121.

  182. 182.

    von Bar (2009c), n. D9 to VI.–2:207, p. 513.In the Portuguese Civil Code , the expression used is “information, recommendation or advice”, which means that the rule comprises the transmission of an assertion of fact and advice alone.

  183. 183.

    von Bar (2009c), n. A1 to VI.–2:207, p. 510.

  184. 184.

    ibid.

  185. 185.

    ibid., nn. B5, B6, C7, C8 and C9 to VI.–2:207, pp. 512 and 513.

  186. 186.

    ibid., n. A1 to VI.–2:207, p. 510. See also Carneiro da Frada (1997) .

  187. 187.

    For details see ibid., nn. C7 and C8 to VI.–2:207, pp. 512 and 513.

  188. 188.

    ibid., n. B6 to VI.–2:207, p. 512.

  189. 189.

    von Bar (2009c), n. D10 to VI.–2:207, p. 513 f.

  190. 190.

    Koziol (2009), p. 102.

  191. 191.

    See Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 1 lit. b to Art. 485 CC, p. 487.

  192. 192.

    It is apparent that fault is relevant only when the circumstances in lits. a and b are present. The provision of advice or information negligently will not lead to liability on its own, as is the case in Art. 485(1) CC.

  193. 193.

    von Bar (2009c), n. A3 to VI.–2:207,511; Volens (2010), p. 181.

  194. 194.

    See von Bar (2009c), n. A1 to VI.–2:208, 520; n. A3 to VI.–2:208, 520 f. and n. B10 to VI.–2:208, p. 522 f. See also Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 182.

  195. 195.

    von Bar (2009c), n. B9 to VI.–2:208, p. 522.

  196. 196.

    Koziol (2009), p. 103.

  197. 197.

    ibid., n. B8 to VI.–2:208, p. 522

  198. 198.

    ibid., n. B11 to VI.–2:208, p. 523.

  199. 199.

    von Bar (2009c), n. A1 to VI.–2:211, p. 546.

  200. 200.

    Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 121; von Bar (2009c), n. A3 to VI.–2:211, p. 547.

  201. 201.

    von Bar (2009c), n. C10 to VI.–2:211, p. 549.

  202. 202.

    ibid., n. B6 to VI.–2:211, p. 548.

  203. 203.

    ibid., n. A2 to VI.–2:211, p. 546.

  204. 204.

    ibid., n. A4 to VI.–2:211, p. 547.

  205. 205.

    ibid., n. A5 to VI.–2:211, p. 547 and n. B7 to VI.–2:211, p. 548.

  206. 206.

    von Bar (2001a), p. 523; von Bar (2002a), p. 174. For alternative techniques, see Koziol (2004), pp. 149–152 and Koziol (2006), pp. 882–885.

Bibliography

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpa G, Bessone M, Zeno-Zencovich V (1995) I fatti illeciti. In: Rescigno R (ed) Trattato di diritto privato, vol XIV. Utet, Turin

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Araújo Dias CM (2010) O crédito pela compensação do trabalho doméstico prestado na constância do matrimónio (a contribuição consideravelmente superior de um dos cônjuges para os encargos da vida familiar - O art. 1676 do Código Civil). In: Sottomayor M C, Féria de Almeida M T (coords) E foram felizes para sempre? Uma análise crítica do novo regime jurídico do divórcio. Wolters Kluwer/Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 199–226

    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 

  • Blackie J (2005) Tort/Delict in the work of the European Civil Code project of the study group on a European civil code. In: Zimmermann R (ed) Grundstrukturen eines Europäischen Bereicherungsrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 133–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackie J (2007) The torts provisions of the Study Group on a European Civil Code. In: Bussani M (ed) European tort law. Eastern and western perspectives, European private law 5. Stämpfli, Bern, pp 55–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüggemeier G (2009a) Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another: the making of a hybrid. In: Somma A (ed) The politics of the Draft Common Frame of Reference, pp 179–198. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cian G (1966) Antigiuridicità e colpevolezza: saggio per una teoria dell’illecito civile. CEDAM, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Claeys I (2012) The draft tort rules of the DCFR: a Belgian law perspective. In: Sagaert V, Storme M, Terryn E (eds) The Draft Common Frame of Reference: national and comparative perspectives. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland, pp 231–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Coelho dos Santos J (1994) A reparação civil do dano corporal: reflexão jurídica sobre a perícia médico-legal e o dano dor. RPDC 3(4):73–90

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cupis A (1979) Il Danno. Teoria generale della responsabilità civile. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Eidenmüller H, Faust F, Grigoleit HC, Jansen N, Wagner G, Zimmermann R (2008a) The common frame of reference for European private law - Policy choices and codification problems. OJLS 28(1):659–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Eidenmüller H, Faust F, Grigoleit HC, Jansen N, Wagner G, Zimmermann R (2008b) Ungesteuerte Richtermacht; ist die Zeit schon reif für ein europäisches Zivilgesetzbuch? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 5 June 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Escher-Weingart C (1993) Nutzungsausfall als Schaden und sein Ersatz. Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    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 

  • Franzoni M (1993) Fatti illeciti. In: Galgano F (ed) Commentario del Codice Civile Scialoja-Branca, libro IV: Obbligazioni, Arts. 2043–2059. Zanichelli, Il foro Italiano, Bologna/Roma

    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 

  • Gozzi C (2006) Der Anspruch iure proprio auf Ersatz des Nichtvermögensschadens wegen der Tötung eines nahen Angehörigen in Deutschland und Italien. V&R Unipress, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohloch G (1981) Allgemeines Schadensrecht: Empfiehlt sich eine Neufassung der gesetztlichen Regelung des Schadensrechts (§§ 249-255 BGB)? In: Bundesminister der Justiz, Gutachten und Vorschläge zur Überarbeitung des Schuldrechts, vol 1. Bundesanzeiger, Cologne, pp 375–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollander W (2012) Tort law and the violation of statutory provisions. In: Sagaert V, Storme ME, Terryn E (eds) The Draft Common Frame of Reference: national and comparative perspectives. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland, pp 241–260

    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 

  • 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 (2009) Außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse im CFR. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 93–112

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Leite de Campos D (1987) A vida, a morte e a sua indemnização. BolMinJus 365(1):5–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipstein K (1963) Protected interests in the law of torts. CLJ 21(1):85–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (2001a) Comparative report on the law of damages. In: Magnus U (ed) Unification of tort law: damages. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York, pp 185–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (2001b) Damages under German law. In: Magnus U (ed) Unification of tort law: damages. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York, pp 89–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (2004b) Vergleich der Vorschläge zum europäischen Deliktsrecht. ZEuP (3):562–580

    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 LM (2013) Direito das Obrigações, vol 1, 10th edn. 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 

  • Mommsen F (1855) Zur Lehre von dem Interesse. Schwetschke, Braunschweig

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliphant K (2011) Volume 4 (Book VI, Non-Contractual Liability Arising out of Damage Caused to Another). Edinburgh Law Rev 16(1):309–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkel T (2008) Das Buch VI des Entwurfs eines Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens (DCFR): Nichtvertragliche Schuldverhälnisse aus Schädigung Dritter. Eine kritische Analyse des Modellgesetzes eines europäischen Deliktsrechts. ZERP-Diskussionspapier 6/2008. ZERP, Bremen

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodotà S (1964) Il problema della responsabilità civile. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudden B (1991–1992) Torticles. TulCivLaw Forum 6/7(105):105–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacco R (1960) L’ingiustizia del danno di cui all’art. 2043 cc. Foro pad. I:1420–1442

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P (1997) Schadensersatz und Schadensbegriff. ZEup 2:232–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger P (1960) L’ingiustizia del danno nell’illecito civile. JuS:336–347

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze R (2012) Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another in the DCFR. In: Sagaert V, Storme M, Terryn E (eds) The Draft Common Frame of Reference: national and comparative perspectives. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland, pp 221–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinde Monteiro JF (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 

  • Sinde Monteiro JF, Veloso MM (2001) Portugal. In: Faure M, Koziol H (eds) Cases on medical malpractice in a comparative perspective. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 172–187

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann S (2003) Conceptual foundations of the law of delict as proposed by the Study Group on a European Civil Code. InDret 130:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Trimarchi P (2007) Istituzioni di diritto privato, 17th edn. Giuffrè, Milan

    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 

  • Volens U (2010) Expert’s liability to a third person at the point of intersection of the law of contract and the law of delict. JI 17(1):176–187

    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 (1996a) A common European law of torts. Centro di Studi e Ricerche di Diritto Comparato e Straniero, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1999a) Außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse, insbesondere Haftungsrecht. In: von Bar C, Barendrecht M, Basedow J, Drobnig U, van Gerven W, Hondius E, Kerameus K, Koussoulis S, Lando O, Loos M, Tilmann W (eds) (1999) Untersuchung der Privatrechtsordnungen der EU im Hinblick auf Diskriminierungen und die Schaffung eines europäisches Zivilgesetzbuches. Europäisches Parlament, Luxembourg. Available via the European Parliament website. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/1999/168511/IPOL-JURI_ET%281999%29168511_DE.pdf. Accessed 31 March 2017

  • 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 (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 (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 (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 (2002b) On drafting principles of tortious liability. In: Barrett G, Bernardeau L (eds) Towards a European civil code: reflections on the codification of civil law in Europe, pp 67–74. ERA Forum, Trier

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2008c) Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another under the DCFR. ERA Forum 9(1):33–38

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (ed) (2009c) Principles of European law on Non-Contractual Liability Arising Out of Damage Caused to Another. PEL Liab. Dam. Sellier, Munich

    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, 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 

  • Wagner G (2009) The law of torts in the DCFR. In: Wagner G (ed) The Common Frame of Reference: a view from law & economics. Sellier, Munich, pp 225–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir T (1999) Book review of unification of tort law: wrongfulness. CLJ 58(3):643–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Winiger B, Koziol H, Koch B A, Zimmermann R (eds) (2011) Digest of European tort law. Essential cases on damage, vol 2. De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

    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). § 7 Reception of the DCFR’s Concept of “Legally Relevant Damage” and Its Potential for the Protection of Pure Economic Interests. 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_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_7

  • 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