Affiliation:
1. Mendel University in Brno , Faculty of Business and Economics (Czech Republic )
Abstract
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to describe the so-called protective purpose of the contract, by demonstrating the liability of experts for damage caused by an imperfect expert opinion, incorrect advice, or information. The comparative method will be used in conjunction with analyzing the Czech, Austrian, and German arrangements – their continuities and differences. Criteria for assessing whether this is a protective purpose of the contract and how these criteria vary in different legal frameworks are discussed in detail. The conceptual features of the expert as well as the assumptions of their responsibility for providing advice or information regulated in the individual jurisdictions are argued as well.
The article concludes that the protective purpose of the contract is demonstrated accurately in the case of the liability of the expert for damage which has been established on the basis of a contract. These are in particular cases where an expert draws up an opinion on behalf of the parties on the basis of a contract which is, however, concluded with merely one party. In the event of a breach of the contract, the expert is also responsible for the damage caused to a party that has not concluded the contract with an expert.
Subject
Law,Sociology and Political Science
Reference27 articles.
1. 1. Brüggemeier, Gert. Haftungsrecht, Struktur, Prinzipien, Schutzbereich Ein Beitrag zur Europäisierung des Privatrechts (Liability Law, Structure, Principles, Scope of Protection, A contribution to the Europeanization of Private Law). Springer, 2006.
2. 2. Brüggemeier, Gert. “Perspectives on the Law of Contorts: A Discussion of the Dominant Trends in West German Tort Law Hastings.” International and Comparative Law Review Vol. 6, No. 2 (1983): 355-398.
3. 3. Büttner, Benjamin. Umfang und Grenzen der Dritthaftung von Experten: eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung (Extent and Limits of Third-party Liability of Experts : a Comparative Analysis). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
4. 4. Coester, Michael, and Basil Markesinis. “Liability of Financial Experts in German and American Law: An Exercise in Comparative Methodology.” The American Journal of Comparative Law (2003): 275-310 // https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/amcomp51&div=16&id=&page=.
5. 5. Deutsch, Erwin. “Zivilrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit psychiatrischer Sachverständiger” (Responsibility under Civil Law for Psychiatric Experts): 822-823. In: H. Pohlmeier, E. Deutsch, and HL. Schreiber, eds. Forensische Psychiatrie heute (Forensic psychiatry today). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1986.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献