Presentation on theme: "Cumulation of tort and contract claim Anne PRUDHOMME ICP Program 2011/2013 – European Contract Law."— Presentation transcript:
Cumulation of tort and contract claim Anne PRUDHOMME ICP Program 2011/2013 – European Contract Law
Difference between tort and contract claim * Difference between tort and contract claim : contractual liability prevails when there is a contract. * But problems for pre-contractual period ? - France : tortious liability - Germany : tendence to lengthen the contractual liability - England : Tort law for fault * Can we choose between contract and tort claim ? That's the problem of cumul or non-cumul.
Non cumul of tort and contract claim The exemple of FRANCE * Absolut theorie of « non cumul » * Civil chamber of Cour de Cassation, 1922 : Protection of the contractual field and of the clauses which compose the contract * We can't cumulate compensations because of the injustify enrichment : no right to double compensations.
Non cumul of tort and contract claim * Reasons : protection of the contractual field – protection of the clause limiting liability * Exception to the non-cumul : when there is a corporal injury, the victim can choose the best solution for indemnisation between tort or contract claim. * Cass civ. 11 janvier 1989 : Contract law therefore predominates ; tortious liability is limited to cases which do not concern a breach of contract.
The possibility of choice The exemple of Germany * « Anspruchskonkurrenz » (competition of claim) allowing concurring and competing remedies. * BGH, 9 may 1957 : The competition of claims allows the plaintiff to choose between the two cause of action. German law recognises that tortious liability may have to be modified in the light of a contractual clause.
GERMANY Anspruchsschäufung * Accumulation of claims * No right to double compensation : when the claim is based on more than one basis of liability.
The possibility of choice The exemple of England *In english law : as in germany. It has always been possible for a claimant to sue either contract or tort if both claims can be made out. *A.J. Jolovicz : « no formal rule against overlapping responsabilities is not found, either in law, or in jurisprudence ». *Ex of Oliver J : If I have a contract with my dentist to extract a tooth, I am not thereby precluded from suiing him in tort ig he negligently shatters my jaw ». (Midland Bank & Trust Co Ltd v. Hatt Stubb & Kemp)
Notion of cumulation * We are using in a wrong way the notion of cumulation Point of view of Bénabent, french professor : In France it is not the ule of « non cumul » but on « non choice ». * Non cumul or absence of option ? It's more an absence of option
Interests to choose * Advantage to choose : for exemple in the case of prescription * The main aim for tort is said to be compensation for harm suffered as a result of the breach of duty fixed by law. Tort is a minimum the contract may just increase. * The main aim of contract is to support and enforce contractual promises and to deter breaches of contract.
Sources *H. Beale, B. Fauvarque-Cosson, J. Rutgers, D. Tallon and S. Vogenauer, Cases, Materials and Text on Contract Law, Oxford : Hart Publishing *Hess-Fallon Brigitte et Simon Anne-Marie, Droit civil, Sirey ; 2007 * Ruff Anne, Thomson, Contract law, Sweet and Maxwell ; 2005 * Christian von Bar, Ulrich Drobnig, The interaction of contract law and tort and property law in Europe – a comparative study ; 2004