Suchergebnisse

For several years now, the issue of the simplification of the law is central in the juridicaldebate. The multiplication of rules of law, of their sources (national and international), as well astheir foundations (laws, rules, codes, etc.), is harmful to the clear understanding of the law andconsequently to the juridical safety.This statement can be made particularly in the field of extra contractual civil liability where normsfrom all origins, all natures and numerous founding bases are indeed to be found. Yet thesenorms overlap and compete in their scope of application, so that several norms may apply to thesame litigation. Therefore, the issue which arises is to ascertain beforehand option, the how toarbitrate among such competing and overlapping norms.In order to structure the norms of civil liability, it has been necessary to research and findprinciples enabling to designate the norms to be applied in the litigation. Two principles stand outfrom this research. The first one, called the guiding principle, is the principle of subsidiarity, whilethe second one, called the principle of revision, is a principle of interest, which is itself based onseveral instruments, such as: option, plurality, and hierarchy. The legislator, the judge and thevictim are obviously at the core of this system of links which, if it is correctly applied, shouldenable to solve all the competitions between norms, by designating the norm which is finallyapplicable. ; Depuis plusieurs années, la question de la simplification du droit est au cœur du discours juridique. La multiplication des règles de droit, de leurs sources (nationales et internationales) comme de leurs supports (lois, codes, etc.), nuit à la lisibilité du droit et donc à la sécurité juridique.Ce constat peut être fait plus particulièrement en matière de responsabilité civile extracontractuelle où l'on trouve effectivement des normes de toutes origines, de toutes natures et sur de nombreux supports. Or, ces normes connaissent des champs d'application concurrents, de sorte ...

For several years now, the issue of the simplification of the law is central in the juridicaldebate. The multiplication of rules of law, of their sources (national and international), as well astheir foundations (laws, rules, codes, etc.), is harmful to the clear understanding of the law andconsequently to the juridical safety.This statement can be made particularly in the field of extra contractual civil liability where normsfrom all origins, all natures and numerous founding bases are indeed to be found. Yet thesenorms overlap and compete in their scope of application, so that several norms may apply to thesame litigation. Therefore, the issue which arises is to ascertain beforehand option, the how toarbitrate among such competing and overlapping norms.In order to structure the norms of civil liability, it has been necessary to research and findprinciples enabling to designate the norms to be applied in the litigation. Two principles stand outfrom this research. The first one, called the guiding principle, is the principle of subsidiarity, whilethe second one, called the principle of revision, is a principle of interest, which is itself based onseveral instruments, such as: option, plurality, and hierarchy. The legislator, the judge and thevictim are obviously at the core of this system of links which, if it is correctly applied, shouldenable to solve all the competitions between norms, by designating the norm which is finallyapplicable. ; Depuis plusieurs années, la question de la simplification du droit est au cœur du discours juridique. La multiplication des règles de droit, de leurs sources (nationales et internationales) comme de leurs supports (lois, codes, etc.), nuit à la lisibilité du droit et donc à la sécurité juridique.Ce constat peut être fait plus particulièrement en matière de responsabilité civile extracontractuelle où l'on trouve effectivement des normes de toutes origines, de toutes natures et sur de nombreux supports. Or, ces normes connaissent des champs d'application concurrents, de sorte que plusieurs d'entre elles peuvent jouer pour le même litige. Le problème qui se pose alors est de savoir à l'avance comment trancher pareil concours.Pour parvenir à articuler les normes de la responsabilité civile, il a fallu rechercher des principes permettant de désigner la norme applicable au litige. Deux principes sont alors ressortis de cette étude. Le premier, dit principe directeur, est le principe de subsidiarité, tandis que le second, dit principe correcteur, est un principe d'intérêt, qui repose lui-même sur plusieurs outils, tels que l'option, le cumul ou la hiérarchie. Le législateur, le juge et la victime sont naturellement au cœur de ce dispositif d'articulation qui, correctement appliqué, devrait permettre de résoudre tous les concours, en désignant la norme finalement applicable.

This Chapter discusses intellectual property and extra-contractual liability by highlighting general comparative analysis issues within civil and common law systems, with some consideration given also to major theoretical clusters that might influence the different legal regimes. The Chapter focuses on emerging issues of extra-contractual liability for intellectual property infringement in the platform economy, with special emphasis on copyright and trademark infringement, seeking to coordinate miscellaneous approaches from the United States, the European Union and selected European countries' experiences. In doing so, this Chapter highlights research and methodological issues related to limited harmonization at a regional level in secondary and extra-contractual liability doctrines when applied to IP. Finally, this Chapter describes the World Intermediary Liability Maps (WILMap) as an attempt to provide consistency within a fragmented research framework while also presenting other miscellaneous endeavours seeking the same goal.

Individual decision-making -- Risk and insurance -- Human interaction -- The market order -- The political order -- Black markets -- The coase theorem -- Property and real rights -- Intellectual property rights -- Extra-contractual civil liability -- Contract

The paper aims to determine situations when arbitrators are personally liable for damages caused and when they enjoy immunity because of their judicial role. There is no uniform approach regarding civil liability of arbitrators. The question is closely connected with the dual nature of arbitration that has a judicial mission despite a contractual origin. Arbitrator's power derives from a private contract and they receive payment from the parties in exchange for professional services. However, they act as private judges - they resolve disputes which require a binding decision of an impartial third party. Due to the double role of arbitrators, this paper will separately discuss civil liability for breaches of arbitrator's contractual obligations and breaches of duties regarding their judicial role. Common law countries provide immunity to arbitrators based on equating their function to that of judges. On the other hand, civil law countries emphasize the contractual relationship between the arbitrators and parties and determine liability according to ordinary law of contract. Despite different starting points most jurisdictions accord a certain degree of immunity to arbitrators in the exercise of their judicial role to ensure the finality of arbitral awards and protect the independence and impartiality of arbitrators. Arbitrators are therefore not liable for the procedural or material accuracy of their decisions because in such cases the parties can bring an action against an award. However, almost all legal systems exclude immunity in cases where the arbitrator intentionally violated his judicial duties. The differences between civil and common law countries are greater regarding liability for breaches of the arbitrator's contractual duties. Contractual limitations and exclusions of liability are also mentioned. The article concludes that absolute exclusions of liability are unenforceable in most jurisdictions. The article will determine which law should apply to the issue of civil liability of international arbitral tribunals. In the absence of legislation and jurisprudence in Slovenia the paper suggests that qualified immunity should apply. Arbitrators should enjoy immunity for judicial acts, except in exceptional cases of fraud and deliberate violations of their judicial duties. For breaches of their contractual duties, arbitrators should be liable according to general rules of contract law.

"Bona Fides" is a well known principle, internationally important as is being set in national laws and international treaties and convections. Dating from Roman law, this principle is used nowadays specially in contract laws by determining honest and fair behavior and lack of bad faith between the parties. Although the Albanian Civil Code provides no definition about good faith, requires it in pre - contractual phase. This paper aims to analyze pre - contractual phase, in all constituent elements provided by the Albanian legislation and the way the parties should behave with each other, without causing damages, showing the required good faith. The pre - contractual responsibility shall be determined by reference to the observance and implementation of "Bona Fides" Principle. The paper will treat the forms of good faith and the difficulties in understanding the existence or the lack of good faith being necessary to treat each case as unique. This paper will be realized by using doctrinal definitions, interpreting court cases and foreign legislation. DOI:10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n9p481

Abstract
This article explores on two 'strangers' for contract law – even though, at second sight, they both would seem truly seminal to contract law. This is, on the one hand, investment advice and more generally (pre-)contractual relationships on the giving of information in capital markets – arguably the largest market and contract segment in developed market economies, or at least one of the largest, but typically rather discussed only in specialised circles. This is, on the other hand, a broad pluralist interdisciplinary theory on trust in its relationship to information – largely underexplored and even missing in parts, even though absolutely core for all trust elements in contracts. There are not few of them. The core argument is that, if sociological, ethical and philosophical approaches are included, the outcome is grossly different from what ensues from the reference to the findings of institutional economics – so far dominant at least in financial services contracts. This is true namely for the desirable design of information, for the focus on specific groups of addressees and as well for the (traditionally rather high) prerequisites of pre-contractual liability.

In the negotiation phase of a contract opposing parties make representations to each other in the process of attempting to reach agreement. Assuming there has been wasted expenditure on one side in anticipation of the contract, can a party recover its losses should negotiations fail? There is a dearth of South African case law in this area, but foreign jurisprudence demonstrates the prevalence of this problem. Can benefits conferred on the other party during negotiations be recouped? Alternatively does an action lie for reliance losses? What would be the basis of such claims? And what measure of compensation would a court award? This paper will interrogate issues surrounding the recoverability of potential enrichment and the possibility of a delictual action for breaking off negotiations if sufficient progress has been made in those negotiations and there has been reasonable reliance on a representation by the recalcitrant party.