How far can tort liability expand without imposing excessive burdens upon individual activity? This comprehensive 2003 study of pure economic loss in Europe uses a fact-based comparative method and research into the laws of thirteen European countries. Includes a historical and analytical introduction to economic loss.

Pure economic loss is one of the most-discussed problems in the fields of tort and contract. This book takes a comparative approach to the subject, exploring the principles, policies and rules governing tortious liability for pure economic loss in a number of countries across the world including the USA, Canada, Japan, South Africa and Denmark.

This book takes an original and comparative approach to issues of causation in tort law across many European legal systems.

This revised second edition of Comparative Tort Law: Global Perspectives offers an updated and enriched framework for analysing and understanding the current state of tort law around the world. Using a critical comparative methodology, it covers not only the common tort law issues but also many jurisdictions often overlooked in the mainstream literature. Contributions explore illuminating case studies from tort systems in Europe, the US, Latin America, Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, including new chapters specifically discussing tort law in Brazil, India and Russia.

The economic torts for too long have been under-theorized and under-explored by academics and the judiciary alike. In recent years claimants have exploited the resulting chaos by attempting to use the economic torts in ever more exotic ways. This second edition, as before, attempts to provide practical legal research to both explore the ingredients of all these torts - both the general economic torts (inducing breach of contract, the unlawful means tort, intimidation, the conspiracy torts) and the misrepresentation economic torts (deceit, malicious falsehood and passing off) - and their rationales. And, as before, an optimum framework for these torts is suggested. However that framework has to take on board the apparent tension within the House of Lords as revealed in the recent decisions in OBG v Allan and Total Network v Revenue. Over 100 years ago the House of Lords in the seminal decision of Allen v Flood in theory set the agenda for the modern development of the economic torts. The majority in that case adopted an abstentionist approach to liability for intentionally inflicted economic harm, so that even where intentional and unjustified economic harm was inflicted, liability would not necessarily follow. However, this clear framework for the torts was obscured by subsequent case law, leaving the economic torts in a hopeless muddle by the start of the twenty-first century. A chance to finally sort out this mess was presented to the House of Lords in 2007 in the shape of three conjoined appeals, reported under the name OBG v Allan. The thrust of the judgments was that a framework for the economic torts was to be established and dicta and decisions that caused problems and incoherence were to be named and shamed. Re-affirming the abstentionist philosophy of Allen v Flood Lord Hoffmann and Nicholls and Baroness Hale in part relied upon the first edition of An Analysis of the Economic Torts, Lord Hoffmann noting "... if what I have said does anything to clarify what has been described as an extremely obscure branch of the law, much is owing to Hazel Carty's book An Analysis of the Economic Torts ". However, within 10 months of the OBG decision, a differently constituted HL in Total Network SL v Revenue and Customs Commissioners undermined this nascent coherence and did so by focusing on the conspiracy torts (previously dismissed by some commentators as anomalous or superfluous). Distinguishing OBG (which did not as such analyse the conspiracy torts) the House of Lords in Total Network may have shifted the general economic torts from the abstentionist to the interventionist track of development. Thus it is suggested that conflicting agendas for general economic liability can be discerned in the OBG and Total Network judgments. These agendas are debated (against the background of the growing academic debate) and a coherent approach suggested. As for the misrepresentation torts their potential for development is also discussed and the peril of allowing them to transform into unfair trading or misappropriation torts is explained. As a result, the second edition involves a substantial re-write of the first edition. However, the thesis of the author remains that a coherent framework for these torts can best be constructed based on a narrow remit for the common law.

In this volume, the Study Group and the Acquis Group present the first academic Draft of a Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). The Draft is based in part on a revised version of the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and contains Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law in an interim outline edition. It covers the books on contracts and other juridical acts, obligations and corresponding rights, certain specific contracts, and non-contractual obligations. One purpose of the text is to provide material for a possible "political" Common Frame of Reference (CFR) which was called for by the European Commission's Action Plan on a More Coherent European Contract Law of January 2003.

Against the background of the creation of an EU-wide frame of reference for private law relevant to the Common Market, this study, which was requested by the EU Commission, analyses the dovetailing between contract and tort law on the one hand, and between contract and property law on the other. The study examines the legal orders of almost all the Member States of the EU, illustrates the differences between contractual and non-contractual liability and evaluates the different systems of the transfer of property, of movable and immovable securities as well as trust law. The study comes to the conclusion that the intensive considerations on the creation of a model-law in the area of European private law do not allow these thoughts to be limited to contract law. Such a limitation to the scope of the regarding of this area would probably cause more problems than it would solve, or at any rate not do justice to the needs of the Common Market.