Culpa levissima and Substitution under Trust Administration

The paper examines the standard of conduct for a trustee and makes an attempt to determine the content of the highest standard of conduct in civil law by the example of an entrusted management agreement (an entrusted management agreement is not an absolute analogue of a common-law trust (or fiduciary) agreement). The paper examines the contradiction between requiring the trustee to exercise the highest standard of behavior and giving him the opportunity to attract third parties to perform his duties. Different legal systems qualify the legal relationship for the management of other people’s property in different ways, depending on the elaboration of such a category as fiduciary duty. In Russian law, this category is not developed, which is also typical for other countries of continental law.

The author attempts to establish a pattern: the standard of behavior of the manager — the responsibility of the manager for the breach of the duty — the possibility of substitution — responsibility for the third party involved. The author comes to the conclusion that the highest standard of conduct is imposed by imposing risk, and not by constructing a special form of fault. The tendency of the development of the doctrine of fault means to reduce the forms of fault, not to increase them. In this regard, the allocation of such a form of fault as culpa levissima is unjustified. The attempt to single out additional forms of fault represents a setback from the results of the discussion of the pandectists of the 19th century, as a result of which the position was taken on the need to single out only two forms of fault (an intent and negligence).

The paper also examines the contradiction between the law of continental countries and common law countries regarding the imposition of the duty on the trustee for the third parties involved by him. Common law countries proceed from the assumption that the involvement of third parties removes the trustee from responsibility for the harm caused by them in the absence of mistakes made in the selection of third parties. Common law countries are following the path of formulating a stricter standard of conduct through the construction of such a category as fiduciary duty. The countries of continental law use the criterion of poor choice of a third person to a lesser extent. The conclusions are based on the study of the experience of the countries of continental law.

1. Arndts L. Lehrbuch der Pandekten. JG Cotta, 1865. 5. Auflage. (In Germ.).

2. Baron J. Diligentia exactissima, diligentissimus paterfamilias, oder, Die Haftung für Custodia. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis. 52. Bd., H. 1. 1869:44-95.

3. Böcking E. Römisches Privatrecht: Institutionen des römischen Civilrechts. M. Cohen, 1862. (In Germ.).

4. Brodmann E. Über die Haftung für Fahrlässigkeit, insbesondere über die Haftung des Schiffers. AcP. 1906;99. (In Germ.).

5. Coing H. Die Treuhand kraft privaten Rechtsgeschäfts. Beck Publ.; 1973. (In Germ.).

6. Engelmann Th. Die custodiae praestatio nach römischem Recht. Verlag der C. H. Beck’schen Buchhandlung; 1887. (In Germ.).

7. Hasse JCh. Die Culpa des römischen Rechts: eine civilistische Abhandlung. Marcus; 1838. (In Germ.).

8. Hoffmann HJ. Die Abstufung der Fahrlässigkeit in der Rechtsgeschichte. Die Abstufung der Fahrlässigkeit in der Rechtsgeschichte. de Gruyter, 2017. (In Germ.).

9. Honsell H, Vogt NP, Wiegand W. Basler Kommentar. Obligationenrecht I; 2015. (In Germ.).

10. Keller FL, Friedberg E. Pandekten: Vorlesungen. Vol. 2. B. Tauchnitz; 1861. 2. (In Germ.).

11. Kofanov LL (ed.). Digests of Justinian. Trans. from Lat. 2nd ed. Moscow: Statute Publ.; 2008. (In Russ.).

12. Koziol H. Kurzkommentar zum ABGB: Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, Ehegesetz, Konsumentenschutzgesetz, IPR-Gesetz und Europäisches Vertragsstatutübereinkommen. Springer Publ.; 2007. (In Germ.).

13. Löhnig M. Treuhand: Interessenwahrnehmung und Interessenkonflikte. Vol. 109. Mohr Siebeck Publ.; 2006. (In Germ.).

14. Medicus D. Schuldrecht II, Besonderer Teil; 2014. (In Germ.).

15. Mühlenbruch ChF. Lehrbuch des Pandekten-Rechts: nach der Doctrina Pandectarum deutsch bearbeitet. 2. Vol. 2. 1844. (In Germ.).

16. Novitskiy IB and Pereterskiy IS (eds). Roman Private Law. Moscow: Zertsalo-M Publ.; 2008. (In Russ.).

17. Passek EV. The concept of force majeure (vis maior) in civil law. Part 1: Unconditional liability of the debtor, its boundaries and content. In: Passek EV. Non-property interest and irresistible force in civil law. Moscow; 2003. (In Russ.).

18. Soergel OG. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetzen und Nebengesetzen, Bd. 10: Einführungsgesetz (Stand: Anfang 1996); 1997. (In Germ.).

19. Staudinger J. Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen. §§ 657– 704. 2006. (In Germ.).

20. Windscheid B. Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts. Literarische Anstalt Rütten & Loening, 1862. Vol. 1. (In Germ.).

21. Zikun II. The construction of trust in civil law: nonfiduciary fiduciary contract. Civil Law Review. 2017;17(3):52- 103. (In Russ.).

22. Zimmermann R, Schmoeckel M, Rückert J. Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB, Bd. Schuldrecht: Allgemeiner Teil, 1. Teilband, §§ 241–304. 2007. (In Germ.).