Contract and Tort Choice of Cause of Action by Persons from the Standpoint of Justice: Pro et Contra
https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2024.216.11.074-091
Abstract
The paper deals with the issues of choice of cause of action as to contract and tort in Russian and foreign law, as well as contract and tort competition between persons. The problem of choice between contractual and non-contractual liability has an artificial character for Russian scientific and judicial doctrine. The choice of cause of action relates to the alternative in claims, but not to the alternative as to debtors. It is concluded that modern scientific and judicial doctrine based on a multifunctional interpretation of civil liability can substantiate and justify not only the phenomenon of compensatory aspect of choice of cause of action by persons, but also the possibility of circumventing the limited liability established by law (contra legem) if it meets the goals of fair liability. These include deterrence of harmful behavior and stimulation of potential to ensure the proper performance of their duties to ensure the safety of their activities. Russian law enforcement practice indicates an increasing trend towards the socialization of civil liability, its focus on preventing harm to an indefinite circle of people, social harm (harm to society).
About the Author
D. E. BogdanovRussian Federation
Dmitry E. Bogdanov, Dr. Sci. (Law), Professor, Department of Civil Law; Head for Science, Department of Civil Law Disciplines
Moscow
Donetsk
References
1. Abdussamad S. Unrestrained Liability for Pure Economic Loss in the United States and Spain: A Shared Concern (February 9, 2016). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2730393.
2. Baibak VV. New edition of Article 393 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: general rules on compensation for losses caused by violation of an obligation. Zakon. 2016;8:121-130. (In Russ.).
3. Bogdanov DE, Bogdanova EE. On the issue of non-compensatory damages in Russian civil law. Grazhdanskoe pravo [Civil law]. 2017;2:7-10. (In Russ.).
4. Bogdanov DE, Bogdanova SG. The problem of multifunctionality of civil liability: Comparative legal aspect]. Grazhdanskoe pravo [Civil Law]. 2018;6:32-35. (In Russ.).
5. Bogdanov DE. Analysis of legal approaches to compensation of net economic losses in foreign law. Zhurnal Rossiyskogo Prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2012;3(183):82-91. (In Russ.).
6. Bogdanov DE. Limits of tort liability in Russian and foreign law. Zhurnal Rossiyskogo Prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2011;7(175):69-78. (In Russ.).
7. Bogdanov DE. The evolution of civil liability from the perspective of justice: A comparative legal aspect. A monograph. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2016. (In Russ.).
8. Bruggemeier G. Protection of personality right in the law of delict/torts in Europe: mapping out our paradigms. Personality rights in European Tort Law. Edited by G. Bruggemeier, A. Colombi Ciacchi and P. O’Callaghan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. Pp. 5–37.
9. Bussani M, Palmer VV. The Frontier between Contractual and Tortious Liability in Europe: Insights from the Case of Compensation for Pure Economic Loss (January 15, 2010). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537031.
10. Colby TB. Beyond the Multiple Punishment Problem: Punitive Damages as a Punishment for Individual Private Wrongs. Minnesota Law Review. 2003;87:583-678.
11. De Graaff R. Concurrent Claims in Contract and Tort: A Comparative Perspective. European Review of Private Law. 2017;4:701-726.
12. Dmitrieva OV. The functional purpose of compensation for moral damage as a form of civil liability. Zakon [Law]. 2016;12:89-100. (In Russ.).
13. Durneva PN, Stankevich GV. Features of contractual and tort liability of public legal entities under the civil law of Russia. Yuridicheskiy mir [Juridical World]. 2016;10:23-27. (In Russ.).
14. Erokhova MA. Competition of requirements under the Civil Code of Russia. Cand. Diss. (Law). Moscow; 2006. (In Russ.).
15. Fleischitz EA. Obligations arising from harm and unjustified enrichment. Moscow: Gosyurizdat Publ.; 1951. (In Russ.).
16. Gilmore G. The Death of Contract. Second edition. Ohio: Ohio State University Press; 1995.
17. Gold AS. A Theory of Redressive Justice (October 7, 2011). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1940594.
18. Goldberg JCP. Twentieth Century Tort Theory. Vanderbilt University Law Scholl. Law &Economics Working Paper Number 02-15. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=347340.
19. Gutnikov OV. The grounds for development of corporate liability category in civil law. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. Pravo [Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics]. 2020;4:4-30. (In Russ.).
20. Jones MA. Textbook on Torts. Eight Edition. Oxford University Press; 2007.
21. Letuta TV. Compensation for damage caused as a result of defects in goods as in contractual forms of civil law transactions. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika [Russian Laws: Experience, Analysis, Practice]. 2019;7:39- 45. (In Russ.).
22. Linden A. Canadian Tort Law. 11th ed. Toronto: LexisNexis, 2018.
23. MacKenzie B. Shifting Blame? Reassessing the Tort of Inducing Breach of Contract Following A. I. Enterprises v. Bram (April 19, 2016). Annual Review of Civil Litigation. Edited by L. Todd, J. Archibald, R. Scott Echlin. September 2016. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2978099.
24. Markel D. Retributive damages: A theory of punitive damages as intermediate sanction. Cornell Law Review. 2009;94:239-340.
25. Markesinis BS, Unberath H. The German Law of Torts: A Comparative Treatise. 4th ed. Oxford; 2002.
26. Moréteau O. France: French Tort Law in the Light of European Harmonization. Journal of Civil Law Studies. 2013;6:760-801.
27. Ostroumov NN. The legal regime of international air transportation: A monograph. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2015. (In Russ.).
28. Sérafin S, Sun K. Corrective Justice and In Personam Rights: Reconsidering the Tort of Inducing Breach of Contract (August 6, 2023). Lexis-Nexis Supreme Court Law Review, Third Series. 2024;3:115. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4707488.
29. Shevchenko AS, Shevchenko GN. Tort obligations in Russian civil law: A study guide. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2013. (In Russ.).
30. Stoyanov D. The Uneasy Case of Tortious Interference with a Contractual Prohibition of Assignment (July 18, 2023). International Journal of Legal and Social Order. 2023;3 (1). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4523654.
31. Tololaeva NV. Passive solidarity obligations: The Russian approach and the Continental European tradition. A monograph. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2020. (In Russ.).
32. Tololaeva NV. Trends in Russian judicial practice in the context of the European discussion on «real» joint liabilities. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review]. 2016;3:80-106. (In Russ.).
33. Tselovalnikova IYu. Civil liability of participants in corporate relations. Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. 2018;11:60-67. (In Russ.).
34. Van Boom WH. Pure Economic Loss — a Comparative Perspective. In: Van Boom WH, Koziol H, Witting CA, editors. Pure Economic Loss. Wien; New York: Springer; 2004. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=555809/
35. Venchiarutti A. The recognition of punitive damages in Italy: A commentary on Cass Sez Un 5 July 2017, 16601, AXO Sport, SPA v. NOSA. Journal of European Tort Law. 2018;9:104-122.
36. Vitryansky VV, Em VS, Kozlova NV, et al. Russian civil law: A textbook. In 2 vols. Edited by A. Sukhanov EA. Vol. 2: Law of obligations. 2nd ed. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2011. (In Russ.).
37. Von Bar C, Drobnig U. The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe. Munchen: Sellier. European Law Publishers GmbH. 2004.
38. Whittaker S. Privity of Contract and the Law of Tort: the French Experience. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1995;15:327-370.
Review
For citations:
Bogdanov D.E. Contract and Tort Choice of Cause of Action by Persons from the Standpoint of Justice: Pro et Contra. Lex Russica. 2024;77(11):74-91. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2024.216.11.074-091