<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>The aim of the paper is to describe the so-called protective purpose of the contract, by demonstrating the liability of experts for damage caused by an imperfect expert opinion, incorrect advice, or information. The comparative method will be used in conjunction with analyzing the Czech, Austrian, and German arrangements – their continuities and differences. Criteria for assessing whether this is a protective purpose of the contract and how these criteria vary in different legal frameworks are discussed in detail. The conceptual features of the expert as well as the assumptions of their responsibility for providing advice or information regulated in the individual jurisdictions are argued as well.</p><p>The article concludes that the protective purpose of the contract is demonstrated accurately in the case of the liability of the expert for damage which has been established on the basis of a contract. These are in particular cases where an expert draws up an opinion on behalf of the parties on the basis of a contract which is, however, concluded with merely one party. In the event of a breach of the contract, the expert is also responsible for the damage caused to a party that has not concluded the contract with an expert.</p></abstract>

The aim of the paper is to describe the so-called protective purpose of the contract, by demonstrating the liability of experts for damage caused by an imperfect expert opinion, incorrect advice, or information. The comparative method will be used in conjunction with analyzing the Czech, Austrian, and German arrangements – their continuities and differences. Criteria for assessing whether this is a protective purpose of the contract and how these criteria vary in different legal frameworks are discussed in detail. The conceptual features of the expert as well as the assumptions of their responsibility for providing advice or information regulated in the individual jurisdictions are argued as well.The article concludes that the protective purpose of the contract is demonstrated accurately in the case of the liability of the expert for damage which has been established on the basis of a contract. These are in particular cases where an expert draws up an opinion on behalf of the parties on the basis of a contract which is, however, concluded with merely one party. In the event of a breach of the contract, the expert is also responsible for the damage caused to a party that has not concluded the contract with an expert.

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

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

The aim of the paper is to describe the so-called protective purpose of the contract, by demonstrating the liability of experts for damage caused by an...

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

Pubblicato online: 12 mar 2020

Pagine: 163 - 185

Ricevuto: 15 ott 2019

Accettato: 17 gen 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2019-0016

Parole chiave
Protective purpose of the contract, an expert, damages, comparative methods

© 2019 Jitka Matějková et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

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

Pubblicato online: 12 mar 2020

Pagine: 163 - 185

Ricevuto: 15 ott 2019

Accettato: 17 gen 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2019-0016

Parole chiaveProtective purpose of the contract, an expert, damages, comparative methods

© 2019 Jitka Matějková et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Parole chiave
Protective purpose of the contract, an expert, damages, comparative methods