Business Law - The Differences between Common Law and Civil Law: Substansive Law - Breach of Contract and relevance of Fault

3 important questions on Business Law - The Differences between Common Law and Civil Law: Substansive Law - Breach of Contract and relevance of Fault

Breach of contract and relevance of fault: General Info

o Existence of “fault” by either party to a contract becomes instrumental in ascertaining whether there is a breach of the contract or not.

Breach of contract and relevance of fault: Civil Law

Civil Law: In civil law, in principle proving fault in necessary to claim damages; §§ 280 I, 276 BGB:

· § 280 I BGB: Damages for breach of duty: If the obliger breaches a duty arising from the obligation, the oblige may demand for the damage caused thereby. This does not apply if the obligor is not responsible for the breach of duty.
· The provisions state that the obligor will only be liable for harm caused intentionally and negligently. However, in certain causes fault is not necessary to claim damages (e.g., pursuant § 833 of the HGB – animal owner liability)

Breach of contract and relevance of fault: Common Law

§ Common Law: Under common law exists a concept of a “law of strict liability”, under which proving fault is not a prerequisite for claiming breach of contract with certain exceptions such as impossibility of performance or changed circumstances.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

  • A unique study and practice tool
  • Never study anything twice again
  • Get the grades you hope for
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.
Trustpilot Logo