查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- A Comparative Study of Pure Economic Loss: Where Is Taiwan on the Map?
- 論我國法上交易安全義務理論之建立
- 遺囑無效之侵權責任
- 論董事與公司間交易之規範
- 信託法原理與商業信託法制
- 從法律觀點談醫療水準與醫師之注意義務
- 不合營業常規交易之判定標準與類型
- [信託法專題研討] 從信賴關係談受託人、受任人、法人代表及公司負責人之注意義務(概要)
- 交通事故與信賴原則
- Misrepresentation in International Securities Transactions--A Conflict of Laws Approach
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | A Comparative Study of Pure Economic Loss: Where Is Taiwan on the Map?=純粹經濟上損失之比較法研究:臺灣位於地圖何處? |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 唐采蘋; | 書刊名 | National Taiwan University Law Review |
| 卷 期 | 18 2023.06[民112.06] |
| 頁 次 | 頁41-96 |
| 分類號 | 584.338 |
| 關鍵詞 | 純粹經濟上損失; 注意義務; 瑕疵商品; 不實陳述; 資源及通道使用; Pure economic loss; Duty of care; Defective product; Misrepresentation; Use of source and access; |
| 語 文 | 英文(English) |
| DOI | 10.53106/181263242023061801002 |
| 中文摘要 | 本文探討各國侵權行為法對於純粹經濟上損失的不同規範,進行 比較法研究,尤其著重德、法、英、美等國,同時也將臺灣法納入這 張比較法的世界地圖,進行分析、比較。傳統通說認為被害人不得依 據過失侵權責任主張純粹經濟上損失之損害賠償,除非法律另有特別 規定。然而,有鑑於社會及科技日新月異,許多相關規範需要被重新 評估。本文認為通說可能有過度解釋某些經典裁判之嫌,擴大適用於 其他案例,但卻誤解了該等裁判背後的真義。問題癥結在於如何解釋 法院的裁判,而不在於裁判的結果。本文主張重新檢視裁判的基本前 提,包括事實、問題、假設和相關因素,以評估適用的合理性。本文 依序介紹德國、法國、英國、美國和臺灣如何處理純粹經濟上損失, 在美國,因各州不同的法律見解及認定,因此使比較法研究更具挑戰 性。本文最終以一個比較表格作結,摘要上述各國對於不同類別純粹 經濟上損失的觀點,期能提供讀者一個更全面的概覽。 |
| 英文摘要 | This paper explores the complex issue of tort liability for pure economic loss in various jurisdictions, with a focus on Taiwan. Traditionally, many legal systems have denied recovery for pure economic loss in negligent torts, except under specific regulations. However, the ever-changing landscape of society and technology necessitates a reevaluation of established norms. The paper emphasizes that the prevailing view has often overextended its application, misinterpreting leading cases and wrongly denying recovery in situations where the leading cases did not require such denial. The problem lies in the interpretation of court decisions rather than the decisions themselves. The paper advocates for a comprehensive examination of the underlying premises of each precedent, including the facts, issues, assumptions, and relevant factors, to assess the soundness of justifications. The study then delves into how Germany, France, the U.K., the U.S., and Taiwan address pure economic loss. It also acknowledges the unique challenges in the U.S., where different states have distinct perspectives and judgments. As a result of the comparative study, the paper provides a comparative table summarizing the perspectives of different jurisdictions on various categories of pure economic losses, offering a comprehensive overview of the multifaceted legal scenarios. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。