The article deals with methodological problems of the doctrine of civil liability as a form of legal liability. In the domestic civil law science it constitutes a "set of consequences" arising due to either wrongful or lawful conduct, due to fault and lack of fault, for one's own acts and the acts of the others, for the acts and for an event, when there is a causation or the causation is lacking. The main reason for this scientific situation amounts to the neglect of methodological principles and approaches to the study. The author defines and studies the three most relevant methodological issues of the civil law research of liability. First, the civilistic approach to studying liability with regard to many issues is not consistent with the theory of law that has methodological significance for all branches of the legal science: most of the measures referred to as civil liability do not correspond to the essence, principles, objectives, goals and functions of legal responsibility. Second, civil liability is mainly examined through the dogmatic method of cognition that does not allow going beyond the boundaries of constantly amended and supplemented positive law. At the same time, the legislator continually "produces" new measures that redistribute property from one person to another (compensation for lawful acts, recovery of property losses) constantly forcing to make the theory fit the law, thereby the doctrine of civil liability loses its own boundaries and hallmarks of scientificity. Third, an interdisciplinary approach is little, if any, applied to study civil liability, permissible results and research methods of related sciences (economics, sociology, psychology) that could make significant contribution to the further cognition of the nature of liability in civil law are not implemented. Resolution of these methodological issues is a compulsory element for both strengthening of the doctrine of civil liability and its further effective development and successful enforcement of regulatory norms associated with it.

The article reveals the essence of two simultaneous processes: socialization and humanization of civil law. These processes are also reflected in the transformation of the institution of civil law. Based on the analysis of legislation, jurisprudence and the doctrine, certain tendencies of the development of civil liability for breaches of obligations can be identified. First, the introduction of the principle of good faith into civil law has had a significant impact on the legal rules governing civil liability for breaches of obligations. The paper justifies the conclusion that the evolution of the principle of good faith of the participants of civil circulation has led to the development of justice and proportionality foundations as basic criteria for civil liability. Second, the author describes the search for an effective model of responsibility combining standards of both fault-based liability ensuring fair retribution and faultless liability aimed at providing fair compensation and distribution of damages for non-performance of a contract. Third, one should take into account the foreseeability of the consequences in the construction of civil liability and subjectivization of causation. A peculiarity of the development of causal relationships in contractual relations is that the circumstances influencing their development pass through the consciousness of the parties to the contract, and, therefore, they can foresee the legal consequences with a certain degree of probability, as well as the evolution of the causal relationship due to the circumstances envisaged by the contract. Fourth, the paper highlights the compensatory nature of civil liability measures - protection of the creditor's interest in performance (performance interest). Fifth, the development of discretionary foundations of civil liability. This tendency is manifested in the fact that the parties are entitled to either limit or amend the conditions of such liability within the limits established by the law. Sixth, one of the tendencies of the development of the doctrine of civil liability amounts to widening the scope of non-consensual liability and strengthening an interaction between contractual and tortious liability. A widened scope of non-consensual liability can be illustrated by instances of the reception of pre-contractual liability by Russian Civil Law (culpa in contrahendo) and attempts made by judges to award "net economic losses." Based on the study conducted, it may be concluded that the reception of a number of legal structures of European Law and their adjustment to the peculiarities of Russian civil circulation are intended to create a new concept of civil law in general, and the institution of civil liability in particular based on the principles of justice, proportionality and integrity.

The article provides analysis of the provisions of Chapter 25 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation concerning the use of presumptions, as well as other legal structures based on assumptions. The paper explains the author's understanding of presumptions as models of legal phenomena used to overcome uncertainty and ambiguity in legal relations in order to efficiently combine the interests of participants. The author draws attention to the functions of legal presumptions and their dependence upon the functions of legal phenomena simulated in presumptions, which provides guidance for the effective application of such structures for the protection of interests of participants of legal relations. It is noted that the possible existence of uncertainty as to the breach of an obligation at this stage of resorting to protection does not create prerequisites for the use of presumptions in civil law, but rather gives rise to the need to establish the facts of the breach of obligations. However, assumptions made in such situations are treated as procedural rather than substantive presumptions. In the paper special attention is focused on the study of presumptions application and different assumptions in order to systematize the rules with regard to conditions of imposing civil liability on debtors for violations of obligations (wrongfulness of behavior of a person violating the obligation, causality between wrongful behavior and a violation of an obligation, fault). The author justifies conclusions according to which it is impossible to apply presumptions in determining the wrongfulness of the conduct of a wrong-doer and the causal link between the wrongful conduct and the breach of the obligation. The author examines the possibility of applying assumptions of negative consequences of breaches of obligations and forms of their expression under the existing regulatory norms and legal determinations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that reflect approaches to the application of the novels (new laws) of civil law. In evaluating conditions for the application of the presumption of fault, the author proposes analysis of its nature and determines the limits of its application. The author justifies inability to apply a presumption of fault in evaluating creditor's behavior. The author makes a general conclusion that there is an objective need for assumptions to regulate relations aimed at application of civil liability measures.

The article analyzes peculiarities of manifestations of the civil liability juridical construction as applied to debtor-creditor relations arising as a result of a penalty, security, retention of the debtor's goods, surety, independent guarantee, and deposit and security payment. It has been concluded that, with respect to penalty and deposit, civil liability determines the basic elements of obligations. A security function of a deposit and penalty shall be exhausted by means of motivating to perform the obligation properly; thus, deposit or penalty agreements can be qualified as agreements to establish special measures of liability. With respect to security, retention and security payment, liability may be provided by an agreement between the Parties and is treated as an additional sanction for the breach of individual obligations. As to surety, the concept of liability is a key one and it allows separating the elements of a surety agreement from the principal obligation. The surety undertakes to fulfill his or her own obligation arising from a surety contract, rather than to recover losses or fulfill the obligation on behalf of a debtor under the principal obligation. The terms "solidarity" and "subsidiary" in relation to the "liability" of the surety refer to the relevant forms of surety. However, at the level of the judicial practice, an additional manifestation of an accessory character of surety was formulated - under the general rule, the surety is not held liable for the breach of his obligation, unless otherwise provided for by a surety contract. In respect of an independent guarantee, the opposite decision is formulated; under a general rule the guarantor is liable as any other debtor is under a monetary obligation. Therefore, such a manifestation of accessory means of obligation enforcement as the limitation of the liability of the surety or grantor may be regarded as a general rule for a certain group of security constructions.

From the standpoint of the consistency of the civil law reform, the article compares the rules of civil liability and the legal status of participants of civil relations. The author identifies and illustrates peculiarities of liability that depend on the legal status within the detor-creditor relation. Within business relations, the article considers complex interests, the right to reduce the penalty for the breach of an obligation by an entrepreneur, limitations of liability of an entrepreneur concerning the ways to secure fulfillment of obligations, limitation of opportunities to declare void the contract associated with the business activity of parties to this contract. The author identifies the specificity of the contractor's liability before the consumer under the non-gratuitous contract in consumer protection legislation. The author considers distinctive features of a penalty under the contractual system legislation with regard to the state (municipal) customer and supplier (contractor, executor). The author analyzes and systematizes changes in law concerning liability and associated with the specificity of a legal status of legal entities. The paper identifies the problems for the legal Institution of liability, tendencies to recognize a body of a legal entity as a quasi-capable. The author considers selected issues of interrelation and distribution of liability between legal entities, their organs and members of the organs of legal entities in internal relations and in transactions with other persons. As a result, the author reveals specificity and tendencies in the development of the institution of civil liability in accordance with participants involved. Changes in the legislation on civil liability associated with the specificity of a legal status of legal entities are in fact conditioned by the new version of Chapter 4 of the Civil Code and the extending application of general provisions to the obligations to claim that arise from corporate relations. In inside relations, a member of the body of the legal entity is liable directly to the organization. In other relations, where the legal entity itself acts externally, first, the organization undertakes adverse effects and then, in recourse, the organization can recover its losses from a member of the organ of the legal entity. Keywords: debtor, contract system, corporate attitude, creditor, penalty, obligation, body of a legal entity, liability, consumer rights, business relations, principle of equality, complex interests, legal entity.

The criteria for distinguishing the elements of unfair competition and abuse of the trade mark rights during the process of trade mark registration have not been developed either at the level of the doctrine or judicial practice. These institutions are often commingled. In this paper the authors justify inadvisability of applying elements of unfair competition to the trade mark registration. Based on the analysis of judicial practice, it is possible to conclude that unfair trademark registration does not always affect competition. Even in cases when there is a likelihood of such an impact, the courts do not establish the existence of such an impact and do not determine possible competitors of the right holder. The conclusion concerning the applicant's good faith or bad faith during the process of the trademark registration must be made in terms of conformity with the trademark functions (improvement of the quality of goods, reduction of the cost of the consumer choice, etc.), and not only in terms of securing free competition. If a sign was previously used without registration by other persons registered as a trademark, a distinction must be made between two cases. First, when an applicant is interested in using the trademark and associating his own positive reputation (good will) with it. Before an application for registration was filed, he had used a sign along with other persons and that sign had not lost its differentiating capacity. In this situation, registration is consistent with the institutional designation of the trademark, although it is detrimental to the interests of competitors. The sign becomes a fully fledged identifier indicating the source of the goods, and the risk of misleading consumers is diminished. Therefore, the trademark registration must be retained. Second, when an application for the registration of a trademark is submitted by an entity that is not interested in using the trademark, but is acting solely for the purpose of causing harm to the competitor, the acts of an applicant should be terminated. In this case, the trademark registration should be recognized as invalid. Under current laws, the registration of a trademark for inappropriate purposes should be characterized as an abuse of the right. The trademark de lege feranda registration on the grounds of bad faith must be immediately challenged in court. Within the current legislative framework at the level of judicial practice, it is justifiable to formulate a clear conclusion that there is a possibility to use a separate claim to treat the trademark registration as the abuse of the right.

The article analyses Federal Law №42-ФЗ "On the amendment of Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation" adopted on March 8, 2015 on the basis of the Concept of the Civil Law Development in the RF and the draft law on amending and supplementing the Civil Code of the RF. This Law has amended Part 3 of the RF Civil Code which focuses on general provisions regulating obligations and contracts. The concept of liability has also been subjected to significant changes. The paper evaluates changes made in Chapter 25 of the RF Civil Code that concern the rules of legal regulation of two forms of civil liability: recovery of damages, payment of penalties. The author attempts to connect liability concerns with the protection of creditor's rights. While noting the dependence of the scope of liability upon chosen remedies, the author, exemplifying by a contract for the sale of counterfeit goods, attempted to establish a connection between them. This article discusses the issues of whether the rules concerning the legal consequences of supplying defective goods are applicable to the supply of counterfeit goods, what are the other possible ways of protecting the rights of buyers of counterfeit goods and possible forms of liability of the supplier of counterfeit goods if the buyer resorts to other remedies. The paper dwells on the question of the possibility to recognize the transaction as invalid. The author attempts to compare and identify the most effective way of protecting the rights and interests of the buyer of counterfeit goods based on the results of an analysis of relevant provisions of the RF Civil Code and judicial practice. Particular attention is paid to the mechanism of implementing the principle of full recovery of damages, to the analysis of new rules of the RF Civil Code and provisions that have broadened the scope of this principle, thereby making debtor's liability better outlined and the creditor has been granted additional opportunities to protect his rights.

The article addresses the issues of compensation for losses caused by violations of antimonopoly laws as a means of protecting civil rights. It is noted that protection of civil rights infringed as a result of violations of anti-monopoly laws is possible not only in courts but also by means of administrative procedure even without involvement of courts, because such protection can be exercised within the jurisdiction of the FAS of the RF under the current legislation. The author justifies the conclusion that anti-monopoly compensation proposed by the Anti-monopoly Authority as an alternative to damages is purely restorative, rather than punitive (penal) criterion of liability, even though it is applied in response to the violation of anti-monopoly legislation. The paper argues that the question concerning the content and composition of propitiatory consequences of an anti-monopoly legislation violation is directly related to the reasons of losses. It has been shown that the main criterion for the application of protection provided for by civil law is the fact that an administrative offense is linked to the existence of a civil legal relationship where the violation of property rights or the ground for awarding damages take place. According to this criterion the author classifies two types of relationships: 1) violation of anti-monopoly laws directly related to a civil relationship; 2) an anti-monopoly violation that does not have a direct link to a civil relationship where damage to property is caused indirectly (circumstantially). The author carries out a detailed analysis of separate types of grounds for awarding damages, such as the abuse of dominant position, acts of unfair competition and collusive tendering. The violation of the prohibition of the abuse of the right which has the same universal nature as the rule under Article 15 of the RF Civil Code is examined as a specific ground for awarding damages.

The article explores the meaning of the principle of the compensation in full upon the occurrence of a tortious liability in comparison with the content of the principle of compensation in full for harm caused to a citizen during the implementation of the criminal procedure. In this regard, the author investigates recent judicial practice on criminal proceedings cases relating to compensation for material damage and moral harm with full and partial rehabilitation, and shows the absence of unity of interpretation of the elements of the material damage, compensated on general grounds of delictual liability (Art. 1064 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and on special grounds (Art. 1070 of the RF Civil Code and Art. 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The analysis of judicial practice on this category of cases provides reasoning for the conclusion that the compensation for damage to property, paid off to the rehabilitated person is much smaller than the damage compensated under tort obligations (Art. 1064 CC RF). The author shows lack of unity in the approach to determining the amount of compensation for moral injury at full and partial rehabilitation; reveals the notion of "amount" and "size" of the recoverable damage as different legal categories; and justifies the application of the concept of "amount of compensation" and "size of compensation". The generalization of the recent judicial practice and the investigation of judicial practices of the past years, which concern tried in criminal proceedings cases related to the compensation for damage to property, compensation for moral harm suggests that in practice, the principle of full reparation for harm done by the criminal proceedings does not occur. The analysis of the current Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure legislation on compensation for damage to property, moral harm compensation, reinstatement of labour, housing, pension and other rights of rehabilitated citizen testifies the duality of the existing order for restitution of property and personal non-property rights of this category of citizens; and suggests ways to improve the existing order of compensation and the restoration of the violated rights of the victim. It is proposed that a unified judicial limitation order be implemented.

The article discusses the impact of the general principle of proportionality of responsibility on the application of Art. 333 of the RF Civil Code by the courts. Given the uncertainty of concepts and their estimating nature used by the legislator in Art. 333, particular attention is given to the analysis of the interpretations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the judicial practice on the issue of the apparent disproportionate penalty payable to the consequences of breaches of obligations. In particular, the authors analyze the reasons of reducing penalties payable, and the criteria for determining the apparent disproportionate forfeit consequences of a breach of an obligation. The authors conclude that a measure of protection - reducing penalties-may be applied in some cases in the absence of lender's loss. The article determines the ratio of Art. 333 and Art. 10 of the RF Civil Code making it possible to implement the idea of proportionality of civil liability on the basis of the provisions of the principle of the inadmissibility of abuse of right; and identifies the potential reduction of the penalty solely on the basis of Art. 10 of the RF Civil Code. Based on the analysis of the principle of proportionality of liability the limits of penalty payable reduction is identified. The authors conclude that Art. 333 of the RF Civil Code is aimed at the implementation of a general principle of proportionality and the adequacy of liability, which makes it possible to question its co-relationship with public policy. The notion of public order is characterized by the authors as estimated and largely legal-political, formally lacking certain content, and therefore quite complex for a uniform interpretation. By analyzing the ratio between the concepts of "public order" and "fundamental principles", the authors conclude that the fundamental principles of law form the basis of public law and order. This conclusion is confirmed by the judicial practice. The article raises the question of whether the inappropriate use or non-use by the court of Art. 333 of the RF Civil Code in case of inadequacy of penalty to the effects of the breach of obligations can be regarded as a violation of public policy. There is a lack of uniform judicial practice on this issue.

The estate, which includes equity rights, securities, intellectual property rights, real estate, is often requires the introduction of trust administration until the heirs inherit. The rules on estate trust administration refer the enforcer to the general provisions of Chapter 53 of the RF Civil Code, designed primarily for business relations. However, the specific nature of the trust administration does not allow us to apply general provisions on the liability of the parties to the trust agreement, which leads to insecurity of the participants to the estate trust agreement. Due to the nature of the estate trust agreement, the notary, as a trustor, must not and cannot be liable for the debts arising in connection with the performance of their obligations under the estate trust agreement. At the same time, in practice, it would be difficult to find a citizen willing to perform trust agreement for a stranger's estate within several months, provided that often he is not a professional but still bears unlimited liability for the debts arising out of the trust agreement to third parties and beneficiaries. The absence of opportunities to lay risks of loss on the estate directly enshrined in the legislation, as well as providing the beneficiaries only with a right to bring a claim against the trustee and an opportunity to offer and sometimes insist on the candidature of the trustee, excludes the efficient estate trust. Irrational decisions laid down in legislative regulation of rules on liability for the obligations of the trustee that arose under the trust agreement does not allow direct and reliable protection of the interests of beneficiaries and the provision of the protection of the notary's estate. In our view, there is a need to bring the law into conformity with the actual circumstances of judicial and notarial practice, to protect the interests of beneficiaries and ensure the protection of the estate of the scope of the notary.

As a result of the reform of the civil law, the rules of law of obligations, including contract law, were significantly changed. Some of the most discussed novelties of civil legislation have become new rules on pre-contractual liability. At present, the provisions concerning the regulation of relationships involving parties accountable at the stage prior to the conclusion of the contract are included in the general part of the contract law. In this regard, the question of the definition of the legal nature of pre-contractual liability, its terms and conditions has acquired particular relevance not only from theoretical, but also from a practical point of view. Is it possible to make a conclusion about the formation in national law of a unified concept of pre-contractual liability merely on the basis of the analysis of the previous and new rules of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation? In addition to the issues relating to the nature of pre-contractual liability, the relevant issues also concern the identification of legal grounds and conditions for holding persons liable for bad faith bargaining, the definition of the concept of contract negotiations, identification of their starting and final points, the ratio of rules contained in Art. 434.1of the Civil Code with rules in Art. 431.2, 421, 178, 179 of the RF Civil Code and some others, as well as the issues of determining the amount of damages in unfair bargaining. Based on the analysis of the new provisions of legislation, judicial practice, doctrine, it is possible to conclude that the pre-contractual liability in domestic law is not uniform in nature. Despite the fact that the rules on pre-contractual liability are covered in the general part of contract law, the reasonable conclusion is the impossibility of recognition of pre-contractual liability as purely contractual, as in the case of not concluded contract the legal relationship does not arise at all. Depending on the grounds and conditions of liability for violations at the pre-contractual stage, it can be expressed in the form of contract (if the contract eventually was concluded) or non-contractual (quasi-contractual, tort) liability. The author concludes that, in some cases, pre-contractual liability is incurred in connection with the conclusion or an abuse of the right of refusal from conclusion of the contract, the right to an independent negotiation and resolution of their continuation.

This article analyzes the legal mechanisms for establishing limited liability in civil law of the Russian Federation. First, the author reveals the very notion of civil liability, the legal nature, the essence and principal functions. The author believes that the size of damages may be limited both by law and the contract on the basis of Art. 15 and Art. 400 of the RF Civil Code. Damages is considered in historical and comparative-legal aspect as the main form of civil liability. The article examines the principle of full compensation for damages, as one of the fundamental principles of civil law. Given its compensato-ry-recovery function, it is concluded that modern development of market relations facilitates ascending cases of limited liability in the Russian legislation, thereby going counter to one of the most important principles of the civil law for damages in full. The author conducts a detailed analysis of the legal nature of limited liability in the first place, given the impossibility of recovery of indirect damages on the basis of the current rules of civil law. The author analyses and studies the concept of ordinary civil law terms as enshrined in Art. 15 of the RF Civil Code. In addition, based on the doctrinal conclusions the author justifies the opinion that this legal category also affects the size of the damages and, in some cases, limiting their size. The author considers the legal framework for the possibility of introducing limited liability for certain types of commitments and obligations related to certain activities under the provisions of Art. 400 of the RF Civil Code. The main cases of limited liability, as set forth in the general provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as well as in its special part are identified and studied. The basic forms of limited liability are analyzed, while special attention is given to the damages in the form of real damage, excluding loss of the bargain damages. Special attention is given to the cases of limited liability ban, the rules establishing such a ban are listed and analyzed. The article presents the doctrinal conclusions of well-known civil law scholars of both the Soviet and modern period regarding the reasoning for the establishment of limited liability in the most relevant areas of civil law. The author's arguments relating to the main analyzed issues of the study are presented. At the end of the article the author makes some conclusions possessing the scientific novelty of the place, role, and ways of further development of the institution of limited liability in civil law.

On the basis of relevant civil legislation and law enforcement practice on liability and its measures, the author depicts some problems of definition and interpretation of organizational responsibility, and offers her own approaches to their solution. The author systematizes and analyzes various concepts of organizational sanctions, institutional ways to protect civil rights, as well as the pre-contractual liability. Special attention is given to those concepts that are essential for law enforcement. The author marks constitutional features of organizational liability, organizing contract and organizational obligations. On the basis of these features the author offers her own approach to qualification and application of organizational sanctions. The author defines such a way of civil rights protection as damages in light of the identification of organizational and economic sanctions and explores organizational and legal nature of pre-contractual liability. The article shows the author's approach to the definition of the legal nature of each of these types of civil liability. The attention is given to the differences between such concepts as "organizational liability" and "pre-contractual liability". At the same time the common features of these categories are highlighted. The article discusses the problems of organizational sanctions (inducement to commit organizing actions, damages, recovery of a penalty) in the light of the civil law reform. Special emphasis is placed on the problems of identification and proof of the grounds of the application of measures of organizational liability. The author explores the issue of damages within the pre-contractual and organizational liability. Special attention is given to the practical difficulties of proving the size of actual damages and lost profits for the failure to perform an organizing contract and breach of organizational obligation.

In Russia is still in the process of the civil law reforms. One of the most notable developments in this process has been the active application of foreign experience, which come out as the introduction of many foreign institutions into the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In regard to the novelties to Art. 406.1 of the RF Civil Code it has repeatedly been expressed that it is intended to introduce the concept of indemnity into the Russian Law. However, the category of indemnity is a kind of an "umbrella" category, which covers a wide range of relationships, as the indemnity is a method by which the law allocates different losses. For example, the insurance contract in Anglo-Saxon literature has traditionally been seen as a contract, the essence of which is to provide "indemnity". The considered novelty deals with the so-called contractual indemnity, aimed at the adoption of the debtor on the risk of property loss, not related to the breach of their obligations. The range of this Article is not only limited to "guarantees" for the actions of third parties, indicating the influence of Anglo-Saxon law. However, the drafters of Art. 406.1 of the Civil Code has deprived an agreement for loss reimbursement of the compensation feature since courts can not reduce the size of the losses, unless it is proved that the party deliberately contributed to their increase. The legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation gets the agreement on compensation for losses in the framework of the "concept of accurate protection" (exact protection) which corresponds to the compensatory function of civil rights. The Supreme Court also demonstrated "hidden" application of the rule contra proferentem in regard of the interpretation of the agreements on compensation for losses. The article substantiates the conclusion that in interpreting and assessing reservations for losses it is necessary to be guided by the standards of good faith and reasonable conduct of contractors, to verify these contractual terms for compliance with criteria of fairness, taking into account the actual ratio of negotiating capacities. As a result of the research, it can be argued that the indemnity is the method of distribution of property losses, compensation and distribution functions of civil law. As a separate legal institution, it is possible to consider only the question of agreements for reimbursement of property losses.

As a result of the law of obligations reform a new concept of indemnity (indemnity) "Liability for the breach of obligations", long known in Anglo-Saxon law, was introduced into Ch. 25 Art. 406.1 of the RF Civil Code. The article describes the essence of the indemnity primarily by the example of the classic English case law. This contractual concept is compared with the model indemnity enshrined in Art. 406.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Comparative legal analysis provided an opportunity for the author to identify a number of significant differences in setting regulations on indemnity under Russian and English law, as well as to make certain conclusions, which according to the author, are of fundamental importance in the assessment of the concept in question. Firstly, the different interpretations of this complex and alien to our legal system phenomenon clearly indicates that the institute of indemnity, developed in the jurisprudence of the case law and based on terminology alien to our legal conceptual apparatus, can not be adopted by the Russian Civil Law. Secondly, introducing provisions on compensation for losses into the Civil Code, in fact we apply a new approach to certain fundamental positions and to the foundations of our civil law. The Russian law of obligations has traditionally been based on separation and attachment of such concepts as "liability" and "risk". Art. 406.1 of the Civil Code adopts an institute, where one party to the contract, despite the proper fulfillment of the obligations, shall be liable for those effects that are not related to its non-breaching activities. Obviously, there has appeared a concept similar to the concept of insurance. Thirdly, it should be borne in mind that litigation in case-law countries has introduced new rules gradually, including regulations on indemnity for settlement of the relations in the civil circulation. Over many years of trial and error the relatively perfect mechanism of loss compensation, which provides for the parties to maintain the balance of interests, has been developed. The introduction of similar rules in the law involves serious preparatory work, especially "docking" new norms with other rules of law, which, in relation to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, has not been done by our legislators.

This article analyzes the specificity of protection, as well as the grounds and procedure for the application of measures of legal liability for violations of the rights of real estate owners in the United States. Delinquency prevention mechanisms and ways of ensuring the interests of owners are reviewed in the context of the characteristics of the American system of treatment of structured models of ownership. Special attention is given to the key concepts underpinning the regulation of property relations in the United States: the Posner's Economic Theory of Property Rights, the Hohfeld's Theory of Legal Relations, as well as theories on "a bundle of rods", allowing splitting ownership of the potentially infinite number of powers, the breach whereof entails specific liability measures. № 5 (126) май 2017 lex даж 215 LEX RUSSIICA ЗАРУБЕЖНОЕ ПРАВО The article focuses on the fact that penalties for violations of the rights of real estate owners are determined on the basis of two main factors: type of violation and applicable method of protection. The author explores the tort concept "nuisance" (creation of a nuisance for the property owner), and "trespass" (invasion of property boundaries), through which the ownership powers are protected. There is a tendency to blur the boundaries between these kinds of torts, which complicates the application of appropriate penalties. The author indicates the key requirements for the order of the real estate maintenance and objects located on it in order to prevent possible violations of rights. The article reveals the exemptions from liability for violation of ownership powers, when the invasion of property boundaries cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The remedies granted in accordance with the rules on the protection of the property, on the application of liability and the recognition of inalienable rights are studied. The author provides examples of consequences of claims for nuisance and trespass with the demand to impose an injunction, damages and the recognition of inalienable rights. As a way to protect their entitlements, the possibility to clear the property from any violators on your own is being considered. In the context of the studied problems the author deals with procedural matters, including the Statute of limitations.