Article 162(2) of Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code sets out the central concept of non-contractual liability law by providing a definition of what is deemed a tortious act. The list of different... Show moreArticle 162(2) of Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code sets out the central concept of non-contractual liability law by providing a definition of what is deemed a tortious act. The list of different types of tortious acts concludes with the qualification: ‘except for the presence of a ground of justification’. Thus, the door to the exception to the core of non-contractual liability law has been left wide open. A fascination for this ‘escape’ incorporated in Dutch liability law was one of the motives for this dissertation. This study set out on a journey of discovery through the full breadth of non-contractual liability law, constantly viewed from the perspective of the exception to the rule. The first part of the dissertation is a general exploration of the area of research. The different types of torts are described, the concepts of justification and grounds of justification are defined and the distinction between the grounds of exculpation is provided, and a comparision with criminal law is made. The second part of the study classifies the subject matter. For this purpose, the different types of justifications are defined and divided into categories: complete, incomplete and conditional justifications. The third part of the dissertation is devoted to the principles of justification: culpa in causa and proportionality and subsidiarity. The focus of the book then shifts to the content of the justification. To that end, in the fourth part of the book justification is considered in light of wrongfulness, guilt and relativity. The fifth and final part of the dissertation deals with the legal effects of the presence of a justification: the impact on the judgements of the act and of the obligation to compensate. Show less
Abstract: This contribution analyses whether, and to what extent, the law permits a choice between finding liability in contract and in tort. The answer to this question is important because the... Show moreAbstract: This contribution analyses whether, and to what extent, the law permits a choice between finding liability in contract and in tort. The answer to this question is important because the outcome of a case may differ depending on whether the claim for damages is based on a breach of contract or on a violation of a tortious duty. The contribution examines the approaches in several European jurisdictions. French law is straightforward: finding liability in tort is not possible if the damage is caused by or related to the (non-) performance of a contractual obligation. German, Dutch and English law take the opposite point of view: finding liability in tort is not precluded if the damage is caused by or related to the (non-) performance of a contractual obligation. This contribution traces the historical development of these approaches and explains their differences by looking at the underlying structure of these systems of private law. It also shows that the resoluteness of both solutions has softened over time, as a result of judicial and legislative interventions. To support this argument, recent developments in case law and legislation are discussed.Résumé: Cette contribution s’interroge sur la question de savoir si – et alors dans quelle mesure – le droit offre un choix entre les actions en responsabilité contractuelle et extracontractuelle. La réponse à cette question est importante car l’issue du litige peut varier selon que la demande en dommages-intérêts est fondée sur la violation d’une norme contractuelle ou extracontractuelle. La présente contribution examine cette question au sein des différents systèmes juridiques. En droit français, la réponse est univoque: la responsabilité extracontractuelle comme base de l’action en justice est impossible si le dommage est causé par ou lié à l’(in)exécution d’un contrat. Les droits allemand, néerlandais et anglais optent pour la solution inverse: utiliser la responsabilité extracontractuelle est possible même si le dommage a été causé par ou lié à l’(in)exécution d’un contrat. La présente contribution analyse le développement historique de ces approches et explique leurs différences en recourant aux structures sous-jacentes des systèmes de droit privé. Il se trouve que la détermination de chacune de ces solutions s’est atténuée avec le temps, à la suite des interventions du juge et du législateur. Pour soutenir cet argument, les développements récents dans la jurisprudence et la législation sont discutés.Zusammenfassung: Dieser Beitrag analysiert ob und in welchem Ausmaß das Zivilrecht eine Wahl zwischen vertraglicher und deliktischer Haftung eröffnet. Die Antwort auf diese Frage ist von Gewicht, denn das Urteil in einem Rechtsstreit kann unterschiedlich ausfallen, je nachdem, ob die Klage auf der Geltendmachung einer Vertragsverletzung oder einer außervertraglichen Pflichtverletzung beruht. Der Beitrag analysiert die Ansätze in verschiedenen europäischen Rechtsordnungen. Das französische Recht ist eindeutig: Eine deliktische Haftung ist ausgeschlossen, soweit der Schaden im Zusammenhang mit der (Nicht-)Erfüllung einer vertraglichen Pflicht steht. Das deutsche, niederländische und englische Recht nehmen den entgegengesetzten Standpunkt ein: Die deliktische Haftung ist nicht ausgeschlossen, soweit der Schaden im Zusammenhang mit der (Nicht-)Erfüllung einer vertraglichen Pflicht steht. Der Beitrag greift die historischen Entwicklungen dieser Ansätze auf und erklärt ihre Unterschiede, indem er die diesen Privatrechtssystemen zugrunde liegenden Strukturen betrachtet. Er zeigt auch, dass die Strenge beider Lösungsansätze über die Zeit hinweg, als Ergebnis richterlicher und gesetzgeberischer Einmischung, aufgeweicht wurde. Als Unterstützung für dieses Argument werden jüngste Entwicklungen der Rechtsprechung und Gesetzgebung diskutiert.Key Words: Contract, Tort, Concurrence, Non-cumul, Anspruchskonkurrenz, Samenloop Show less
The main purpose of this thesis is to explore the hypothesis that although Islamic law has its independent principles of liability, Islamic States can adopt international air carrier’s liability in... Show moreThe main purpose of this thesis is to explore the hypothesis that although Islamic law has its independent principles of liability, Islamic States can adopt international air carrier’s liability in international flights and allow the two systems to coexist in domestic flights In so doing, the work focuses mainly on the legal system of Iran.To verify the hypothesis, the author provides five chapters. Chapter 2 discusses the prevailing legal systems that are the common law and civil law that have affected the Warsaw system. A close study of the principles underlying legal liability in these two systems would in turn be very useful in gaining a better understanding of air carrier’s liability in private international law.Chapter 3 investigates the legal liability under the Shariah and Iranian law. The most important issue is the determination of liability limits for death and bodily injury, which is in contradiction with the limited liability and unlimited liability for death and bodily injury in the Warsaw-Hague regime. Chapter 4 deals with the general principles of liability that govern air carrier’s liability in international instruments. There, the author analyses these principles and compares them with the Shariah principles. The Chapter 4 argues and demonstrates that the principles of air carrier’s liability in international treaties are dynamic that continuously evolves. Therefore, States with diverse legal systems can adapt themselves to the principles of the international system. Chapter 5 concludes by highlighting that the Shariah is indeed consistent and able to co-exist with the liability principles of the Warsaw-Montreal regime. Show less
