The Protective Purpose of the Contract and the Liability of an Expert Towards a Third Party in Czech, Austrian, and German Private Law

Author:

Matějková Jitka1,Pavelek Ondřej1

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.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

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.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3