| The issue of compensation for pure economic loss is the hot spot onthe comparative law. There have been so many works on this issue in foreigncountries, while it is still blank in domestic areas, as it has not beenpaid enough attention to. With the trend of damage diversified, the issueis bound to perplex our legislators and judiciaries, and to explore theboundary of compensation is extremely urgent. In this thesis, the authorstarts from the basic theory, analyzes the modes of other countries, andintroduces two methods to establish the boundary of compensation, withthe purpose of constructing an ideal mode in our country.The first part of the thesis first analyzes the concept of pureeconomic loss, which is the premise of other issues. The author believesthat it is proper to definite from the prospective of legal right thanfrom the prospective of the object being infringed on, as it could avoidomissions. Pure economic loss refers to the property damage that causedfrom non-imperium right infringement. After the definition, the authordifferentiates and analyzes the concepts of pure economic loss andindirect economic loss, with the conclusion that the technicaldiscrimination of the two concepts above is just for the need of obligation exclusionary rule, which meant the two concepts above are not entirelydistinct from each other. It reflects the omission of the obligationexclusionary rule. Then, The author describes the two classifications ofpure economic loss, pointing out typisierung is difficult, however, itcontributes to ascertain the boundary of responsibility.The second part focuses on researching the other countries’compensation mechanisms of pure economic loss from the view of comparativelaw. There are three main models: open model as a representative of France,conservative model as a representative of Germany and pragmatistic modelas a representative of UK. After introducing the three models, the authoranalyzes the policy considerations that affected the establishment ofresponsibility. The logic omission of policy considerations reflects thedisadvantage of obligation exclusionary rule, which is also the reasonwhy the countries that adopted this rule are actively creating exceptions.The third part of this thesis analyzes the legislation and judicialpractices involving pure economic loss. The “property” in Article106,Paragraph2of “General Rule of the Civil Law” and the “civil rightsand interests” in Article2, Paragraph1of “Tort Law” should beeninterpreted to include pure economic loss. However, as for it, we shouldadopt more strict constitution elements for responsibility than forimperium right. There have been many cases involving pure economic lossin our judicial practice, and in these cases, the court’s basic attitudeis that, if the special law or judicial interpretation contain provisionof compensation, it will order the defendant assume responsibility, ifnot, it will generally deny the appeal.The fourth part intends to build the ideal model of compensation forpure economic loss in our country. First of all, as it comes to the choiceof relief path,"Tort Law" has already provided relief possibilities, asa result, there is no need to expand "Contract Law". Secondly, in the specific judicial level, it is helpful to introduce the method of dynamicsystem of responsibility constitution and typisierung. From themacroscopic level, the dynamic system of responsibility constitute liststhe ten factors that effecting the establishment of responsibility, whichare more specific than policy considerations, facilitating judges’ workas a result. Typisierung is helpful for the judges to use the same verdictin the same case. As the former research is not useful to establish theboundary of compensation, the author tries to establish types in theprospective of “relationship”, which puts emphasis on the relationshipbetween the victim and the offender. Finally, the guiding case of theSupreme Court should play an important role in compensation for economicloss, with the two methods combined. |
PDF Full Text Request