On Pure Economic Loss

Pure economic loss is a very complex theory, and studying this theory is a major difficulty on Civil and Commercial law. With the development of society, pure economic loss becomes more common in everyday life. Our current laws can not completely deal with a wide variety of pure economic loss case, so it is important to build pure economic loss system within our legal system.In this paper, four types of pure economic loss is the main line. The article studies comparative law to explore other countries’ attitude of pure economic loss(including the British pragmatism protection mode, French liberalism protection mode and German conservatism protection mode), and studies legislative and judicial status quo of China’s pure economic loss, in order to prepare for providing reference for our country to build a pure economic loss system. The suggestion is that pure economic loss in China should not be compensated, and it should be compensated as an exception, and pure economic loss should be protected according to different types. This thesis consists of five parts.The first part is overview of pure economic loss. This part introduces several representative definition, in-depth analyzing the concept of pure economic loss. This part argues that the pure economic loss is a kind of loss which is caused directly by the tortfeasor without the property losses and personal damages. This part introduces the essential characteristics of pure economic loss, which includes economic, indirect, uncertainties and independence. The difference between pure economic loss and indirect economic loss is mainly for the former’s independence and the latter’s parasitic. Pure economic loss includes both the expected loss and the actual loss, and the expected loss is not all belong to pure economic loss.The second part tells us that pure economic loss are classified as ricochet loss, transferred loss, closure infrastructures, professional liability.The third part studies the pure economic loss in terms of comparative law. The open doctrine mode of French makes the greatest effort to protect it. The pragmatism mode of England protects it according to the principle of exclusion of liability. The conservatism mode of Germany doesn’t protect it.The fourth part describes the current situation of pure economic loss from both the legislative and judicial practice in China. We can draw the conclusion that closure infrastructures can be protected, ricochet loss, transferred loss and professional liability can not be protected in China.The fifth part makes recommendations for building pure economic loss in China. This part tells us that pure economic loss in China should not be compensated, and it should be compensated as an exception. Pure economic loss should be protected according to different types, such as closure infrastructures should be protected, transferred loss and professional liability should not be protected, and ricochet loss should be protected following the principle of restricted.