The Protective Purpose of the Contract and the Liability of an Expert Towards a Third Party in Czech, Austrian, and German Private Law

1. Brüggemeier, Gert. Haftungsrecht, Struktur, Prinzipien, Schutzbereich Ein Beitrag zur Europäisierung des Privatrechts (Liability Law, Structure, Principles, Scope of Protection, A contribution to the Europeanization of Private Law). Springer, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

2. Brüggemeier, Gert. “Perspectives on the Law of Contorts: A Discussion of the Dominant Trends in West German Tort Law Hastings.” International and Comparative Law Review Vol. 6, No. 2 (1983): 355-398.Search in Google Scholar

3. Büttner, Benjamin. Umfang und Grenzen der Dritthaftung von Experten: eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung (Extent and Limits of Third-party Liability of Experts : a Comparative Analysis). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

4. Coester, Michael, and Basil Markesinis. “Liability of Financial Experts in German and American Law: An Exercise in Comparative Methodology.” The American Journal of Comparative Law (2003): 275-310 // https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/amcomp51&div=16&id=&page=.10.2307/3649150Search in Google Scholar

5. Deutsch, Erwin. “Zivilrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit psychiatrischer Sachverständiger” (Responsibility under Civil Law for Psychiatric Experts): 822-823. In: H. Pohlmeier, E. Deutsch, and HL. Schreiber, eds. Forensische Psychiatrie heute (Forensic psychiatry today). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1986.10.1007/978-3-642-71681-2_27Search in Google Scholar

6. Faure, Michael, and Louis Visscher. “The Role of Experts in Assessing Damages – A Law and Economics Account.” European Journal of Risk Regulation Vol. 2, Issue 3 (September 2011): 376-396 // DOI:10.1017/S1867299X00001392.10.1017/S1867299X00001392Search in Google Scholar

7. Garner, Bryan A. Black’s Law Dictionary. 10^th edition. St. Paul: Thomson Reuters, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

8. Gordley, James, and Arthur Taylor Von Mehren. An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Private Law. Cambridge University Press, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

9. Hammen, Horst. “Vertrag mit Schutzwirkung für Dritte, culpa in contrahendo und Haftung von Ratingagenturen” (Protection Contract for third parties, Culpa in contrahendo and Liability of rating agencies): 1-19; in: “Direito Privado e Desenvolvimento Econômico: Estudos da DJLV e da Rede Alemanha-Brasil de Pesquisas em Direito do Consumidor sobre o Direito Privado no século XXI.” Organizadores: St. Grundmann, Chr. Baldus, and Cl. Lima Marques, et al. Porto Alegre, 2017 // https://www.uni-giessen.de/fbz/fb01/professurenforschung/professuren/hammen/forschung/publikationen/DruckfassungVortragcicBrasilien.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

10. Honsell, Heinrich. “Die Haftung für Auskunft und Gutachten, insbesondere gegenüber Dritten” (Liability for information and advice, especially towards third parties) (2005): 1-20 // http://www.honsell.at/pdf/FS_Nobel_fuer_Koller.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

11. Husa, Jaakko. A new introduction to comparative law. Oxford: Hart publishing, 2015.10.5040/9781849469531Search in Google Scholar

12. Koziol, Helmut, and Rudolf Welser. Grundriß des bürgerlichen Rechts. Band II, Schuldrecht (Outline of civil law. Volume II, law of obligations). Vienna: Manzsche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1996.Search in Google Scholar

13. Koziol, Helmut. Harmonisation and fundamental questions of European tort law. Vienna: JanSramek Verlag, 2017.10.24031/1992-2043-2017-17-5-173-228Search in Google Scholar

14. Leicht, Steffen. Die Qualifikation der Haftung von Angehörigen rechts- und wirtschaftsberatender Berufe im grenzüberschreitenden Dienstleistungsverkehr” (The qualification of the liability of members of legal and business consultancy professions in the cross-border trade in services). Studien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht, StudIPR 82, XVI. 2002.Search in Google Scholar

15. Magnus, Ulrich. “Comparative Report on the Law of Damages”: 185-217. In: Ulrich Magnus, ed. Unification of Tort Law: Damages. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001.Search in Google Scholar

16. Magnus, Ulrich. “The reform of German Tort Law” (2003): 1-11 // http://scholar.google.cz/scholar_url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.raco.caFt%2Findex.php%2FInDret%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F82541%2F107387&hl=cs&sa=T&oi=ggp&ct=res&cd=32&d=12604090673238680078&ei=oG9QXMWaAsbZmQGV05K4BA&scisig=AAGBfm1qfSew2N2E4XKyEnyL-9qtdW484w&nossl=1&ws=1536x754&at=The%20reform%20of%20german%20tort%20Law.Search in Google Scholar

17. Melzer, Filip, and Petr Tégl. Občanský zákoník: velký komentář. Svazek I (Civil Code: Big commentary. Volume I), § 1-117. Praha: Leges, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

18. Palandt, Otto, Brudermüller Gerd, Ellenberger Jürgen, et al. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: mit Nebengesetzen insbesondere mit Einführungsgesetz (Auszug) einschließlich Rom I-, Rom II- und Rom III- Verordnungen sowie Haager Unterhaltsprotokoll und EU-Erbrechtsverordnung, Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (Auszug), Wohn- und Betreuungsvertragsgesetz, BGB-Informationspflichten-Verordnung, Unterlassungsklagengesetz, Produkthaftungsgesetz, Erbbaurechtsgesetz, Wohnungseigentumsgesetz, Versorgungsausgleichsgesetz, Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz, Gewaltschutzgesetz (Civil Code: with secondary laws, in particular with the Introductory Act (excerpt) including Rome I, Rome II and Rome III regulations as well as the Hague Maintenance Protocol and EU Inheritance Law Ordinance, General Equal Treatment Act (excerpt), Housing and Care Contracts Act, BGB Information Obligation Regulation, injunction law, Product Liability Act, Leasehold Law, Residential Property Act, Pension Equalization Act, Civil Partnership Act, Violence Protection Act). München: C.H. Beck, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

19. Rinaldo, Carlotta. Die Haftung Dritter in Deutschland und Italien. Eine handelsrechtliche Untersuchung zu Ratingagenturen und PartG (Third party liability in Germany and Italy. A commercial law investigation into rating agencies and PartG). De Gruyter, 2017.10.1515/9783110515510Search in Google Scholar

20. Rummel, Peter. Kommentar zum Allgemeinen bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (Commentary on the general civil code): mit EheG, KSchG, MRG, WGG, WEG 2002, BTVG, HeizKG, IPRG, EVÜ: in zwei Bänden. 2. Band, §§ 1175 bis 1502 ABGB; Nebengesetze. 3., neubearb. und erw. aufl. Wien: Manzsche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung, 2002.Search in Google Scholar

21. Sailer, JuBl. “Haftung desSachverständigen gegenüber Dritten.” Juristische Blätter Vol. 131, Issue 3: 174-176 // https://doi.org/10.1007/s00503-008-1579-0.10.1007/s00503-008-1579-0Search in Google Scholar

22. Schäfer, Hans-Bernd. “Efficient Third-Party Liability of Auditors in Tort Law and in Contract Law.” German Working Papers in Law and Economics Vol. 2003, Paper 21 (2003): 1-22.Search in Google Scholar

23. Šilhán, Josef. Právní následky porušení smlouvy v novém občanském zákoníku (Legal consequences of breach of contract in the new Civil Code). Praha: C.H. Beck, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

24. Thiede, Thomas. “Civil Liability of Court-appointed Experts in German Law.” European Review of Private Law (ERPL) 21(4) (2013): 1081-1089 // https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-50898-1.10.54648/ERPL2013062Search in Google Scholar

25. Volens, Urmas. “Expert’s Liability to a Third Person at the Point of Intersection of the Law of Contract and the Law of Delict.” Juridica International XVII/2010 (2010): 176-187.Search in Google Scholar

26. Ulmer, Peter. Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Band 5, Schuldrecht,Besonderer (Munich comment on the Civil Code. Volume 5, Obligation Law, Special), Section III: §§ 705-853 Partnerschaftsgesellschaftsgesetz, Produkthaftungsgesetz (Partnership law, product liability law). 4^th edition. München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2004.Search in Google Scholar

27. Winterová, Alena. Civilní právo procesní: vysokoškolská učebnice (Civil procedural law: university textbook). 6^th edition. Praha: Linde, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

1. Capuzol. Supreme Court of Germany, 1959, NJW 1959, 1676.Search in Google Scholar

2. Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, 2005, no. I. CC 312/05.Search in Google Scholar

3. Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, 2006, no. I. CC 49/06.Search in Google Scholar

4. Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, 2006, no. III. CC 299/06.Search in Google Scholar

5. Supreme Court of Austria, 1931, no. 1 Ob 1124/31 SZ 13/259.Search in Google Scholar

6. Supreme Court of Austria, 1986, no. 1 Ob 536/86.Search in Google Scholar

7. Supreme Court of Austria, 1996, no. 7 Ob 2113/96b.Search in Google Scholar

8. Supreme Court of Austria, 2005, no. 3 Ob 67/05g.Search in Google Scholar

9. Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 1996, no. 3 Cdon 385/96.Search in Google Scholar

10. Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 2001, no. 29 Odo 378/2001.Search in Google Scholar

11. Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 2005, no. 33 Odo 324/2005.Search in Google Scholar

12. Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 2006, no. 22 Cdo 883/2006.Search in Google Scholar

13. Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 2009, no. 22 Cdo 1810/2009.Search in Google Scholar

14. Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 2012, no. 25 Cdo 2706/2012.Search in Google Scholar

15. Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 2013, no. 25 Cdo 4000/2013.Search in Google Scholar

16. Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 2016, no. 25 Cdo 1307/2016.10.1086/692163Search in Google Scholar