Contractual and non-contractual liability to damages (a comparison with foreign legislation) In theory tort and contractual liability might seem to draw clear boundaries. The first one arises from breach of contract whereas tort being unrelated to any contractual obligation. However it is known that some legal systems, like the Czech law, do not differentiate between them and do not provide them with different rules. Does it only mean the differentiation is useless in these legal systems or does it suggest that there might be no reasonable grounds for distinction in other legal systems? How do tort and contractual liability differ? Differences have to be weighed when area between tort and contract is considered. They are of significance when it comes to possibility or impossibility of choice in case of concurrence of tort and contract and they are important for liability to third parties of a contract. I researched following legal systems: Czech law, German law, French law, Spanish law and Italian law. In each of them I examined these areas: contractual liability, liability to third party, tort liability, liability for behaviour contrary to bonos mores, and selected elements of tort liability with some remarks to some special rules for contractual liability: wrongfulness, fault, causation, damage and its...
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:nusl.cz/oai:invenio.nusl.cz:322744 |
| Date | January 2013 |
| Creators | Černý, Štěpán |
| Contributors | Elischer, David, Dvořák, Jan |
| Source Sets | Czech ETDs |
| Language | Czech |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds