
- •Contents
- •General editors’ preface
- •Preface
- •Contributors
- •Table of legislation
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •England
- •Finland
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Italy
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •Spain
- •Sweden
- •The Netherlands
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Finland
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Italy
- •Portugal
- •Spain
- •Sweden
- •The Netherlands
- •Abbreviations
- •1 The notion of pure economic loss and its setting
- •Introduction
- •Pure vs. consequential economic loss
- •Actor’s state of mind: intention vs. negligence
- •The standard cases: a taxonomy
- •Ricochet loss
- •Transferred loss
- •Closure of public markets, transportation corridors and public infrastructures
- •Present vs. future loss
- •In the scale of human values
- •In historical perspective
- •2 The rule against recovery in negligence for pure economic loss: an historical accident?
- •Introduction
- •Continental law before the nineteenth century
- •The Roman texts
- •The natural law schools
- •The nineteenth and twentieth centuries
- •Germany
- •Before the code
- •England
- •Conclusion
- •3A Pure economic loss: an economic analysis
- •Introduction
- •Basic institutions of the market economy
- •Basic rights
- •Freedom of contract
- •Private property
- •Liability
- •Stable legal environment
- •Stable currency
- •Open markets
- •Procedural guarantees
- •Relationship between public bodies
- •Relationships between public bodies and citizens
- •Externalities, rent seeking and dynamic markets
- •Looking at the cases
- •Conclusion
- •A concise summary
- •The economics of pure economic loss
- •Socially relevant externalities and the optimal scope of liability
- •Pure economic loss as a social cost
- •Pure economic loss: towards an economic restatement
- •In search of comparable categories: a hypothesis
- •Recasting the economic loss rule
- •Practical problems in the application of the economic loss rule
- •The problem of foreseeability of pure economic losses
- •Problems of derivative and open-ended litigation
- •Conclusion
- •4 American tort law and the (supposed) economic loss rule
- •Introduction: the relative unimportance of an exclusionary rule in the United States
- •Products liability as an exception
- •Rationales of the rule
- •Contexts and cases
- •Conclusion
- •5 The liability regimes of Europe – their façades and interiors
- •Introduction
- •Two alternative formulas: from façades to operative rules
- •General vs. specific characteristics
- •The liberal, pragmatic and conservative regimes of tort
- •The liberal regimes of France, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Greece
- •France – an enigmatic liberalism
- •In the Belgian looking glass
- •Italy’s recent revolution
- •The Spanish countercurrents
- •Greece’s liberal credentials
- •The pragmatic regimes of England, Scotland and the Netherlands
- •England’s cautious and pragmatic judges
- •Scotland: an ambiguous pragmatism
- •A middle path in the Netherlands
- •The conservative regimes of Germany, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and Finland
- •Germany: narrow in tort but wide in contract
- •The transformed general clause
- •The resort to contractual actions
- •Portugal’s continuous resort to German sources
- •Sweden and Finland: nulla injuria sine lege?
- •Conclusion
- •6 Preliminary remarks on methodology
- •Aim and method of the study
- •The common core approach
- •The three-level response
- •7 The case studies
- •National Reporters and the Editors
- •Comparative Commentary
- •Mauro Bussani and Vernon Valentine Palmer
- •Case 1: cable I – the blackout
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 2: cable II – the factory shutdown
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 3: cable III – the day-to-day workers
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 4: convalescing employee
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 5: requiem for an Italian all star
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 6: the infected cow
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 7: the careless architect
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 8: the cancelled cruise
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 9: fire in the projection booth
- •Case 10: the dutiful wife
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 11: a maestro’s mistake
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 12: double sale
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 13: subcontractor’s liability
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 14: poor legal services
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 16: truck blocking entrance to business premises
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 17: auditor’s liability
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 18: wrongful job reference
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 19: breach of promise
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •Case 20: an anonymous telephone call
- •Editors’ comparative comments
- •8 Summary and survey of the cases and results
- •Introduction
- •Reappraising the divides
- •Certainty vs. uncertainty
- •9 General conclusions of the study
- •Irrelevance of legal families
- •Absence of methodological common core
- •Awareness of the time factor
- •The substantive common core
- •Consequential loss
- •Intentional harm
- •Key areas of selective protection
- •Summary on the ‘limited common core’
- •Introduction
- •Pure economic loss astride private law frontiers
- •The place of pure economic loss within different possible frames of a tort law codification
- •Possible basic scenarios
- •A code imposing liability on the ground of a rigid typecast set of provisions
- •A tort law codification adopting a ‘general clause’: the selection of recoverable losses as the crucial choice
- •A destiny to be interpreted
- •Bibliography
- •Index
3A Pure economic loss: an economic analysis
j ü rg e n g . b ac k h au s
Introduction
In trying to provide understanding of the concept of pure economic loss from an economic point of view we take the legal concept of pure economic loss for granted but, given the diversity of the issue involved and how it is being dealt with, we are also seeking to establish basic economic considerations which allow us to integrate the salient economic considerations into the discussion of the legal case material.
When parties enter into a contract, or when, without a contract, market participants interfere with each other and losses are inflicted, liability will ensue. Economically, the phenomenon is explained in terms of externalities. In principle, externalities are to be internalized so as to make sure that the true costs of any particular activity are borne by whoever undertook the activity and was therefore responsible for it. It is the purpose of the rule of law to establish appropriate forms of liability which, with a minimum of transaction costs, ascribe liability in tort to the tortfeasor.
However, from a dynamic point of view, not every external effect is to be discouraged. When a new technology is discovered, the owners of the old technology or the machinery which embodies the old technology suffer a purely financial loss which is not to be compensated for, as such compensation would stand in the way of economic progress. Hence, the category of pure economic loss has an important economic meaning. The pure economic loss is the loss imposed in the course of dynamic market activities which is not to be compensated.
In a legal sense, it is difficult to distinguish between the two cases, as they sometimes lie very close to each other. From an economic point of view, however, sharp distinctions can be drawn. The necessary concepts
57