论文部分内容阅读
经济损失规则的概念和适用范围仍是争议的主题,这一规则本身的混乱伴随着该规则产生原因的更大的不确定性。区分侵权法和合同法的边界功能是经济损失规则令人信服的理论基础,但是一些重要的原则限制了边界功能的适用范围。在涉及合同关系的案件中解释及适用经济损失规则,只有关注诉讼当事人的实际行动才能恰当地实现该规则的边界功能。首先,如果原告不是某个协议的当事人,那么就没有任何理由限制原告依据侵权法享有的任何权利。其次,不能基于一个不是真实存在的合同提供的假想救济以及合同对纯粹经济损失的补偿具有假想的优先权限制原告的权利。再次,如果被告违反了一项独立于合同责任的侵权法义务,当事人之间的合同没有明确地或足够充分地暗示取代侵权法的救济,当事人则有权获得侵权法的救济。
The concept and scope of the economic loss rule remain the subject of controversy, and the confusion of the rule itself is accompanied by greater uncertainty over the causes of the rule. The distinction between the functions of the frontiers of tort law and contract law is a convincing theoretical basis for the economic loss rules, but some important principles limit the scope of application of the functions of the border. When interpreting and applying the rules of economic loss in a case involving contractual relations, only the actual actions of litigants can properly realize the boundary functions of the rules. First of all, if the plaintiff is not a party to an agreement, there is no reason to limit any rights the plaintiff has under the tort law. Second, the hypothetical priority can not be imposed on the plaintiffs based on the hypothetical remedies provided by a contract that is not real and the contractual compensation for pure economic loss. Thirdly, if the defendant breaches an obligation of tort law that is independent of contractual obligations, the contract between the parties does not explicitly or sufficiently imply a remedy to replace the tort law and the parties have the right to remedy the tort law.