误导行为、信赖与市场因果关系

Henry Cooney
{"title":"误导行为、信赖与市场因果关系","authors":"Henry Cooney","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3844518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent Australian decisions have opened the door to the possibility of liability premised on a ‘market-based’ theory of causation. This article is concerned to explore this emerging category of claims, particularly when founded upon an allegation of misleading or deceptive conduct. Specifically, this article is concerned to examine the nature of market-based causation and to consider the role that ‘reliance’ has in a case based on a market-based theory of causation. This article’s core contention is that the enquiry into factual causation has been unhelpfully merged with the scope of liability enquiry in cases involving misleading or deceptive conduct. This unfortunate mix-up has led to a misunderstanding of the role of reliance in cases of market-based causation. This article argues that, in a case of market-based causation, the concept of ‘reliance’ is not always relevant to the factual causation enquiry. Instead, reliance (or the absence of reliance) is best viewed as a normative issue going to a defendant’s scope of liability.","PeriodicalId":410319,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Torts eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Misleading Conduct, Reliance and Market-Based Causation\",\"authors\":\"Henry Cooney\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3844518\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent Australian decisions have opened the door to the possibility of liability premised on a ‘market-based’ theory of causation. This article is concerned to explore this emerging category of claims, particularly when founded upon an allegation of misleading or deceptive conduct. Specifically, this article is concerned to examine the nature of market-based causation and to consider the role that ‘reliance’ has in a case based on a market-based theory of causation. This article’s core contention is that the enquiry into factual causation has been unhelpfully merged with the scope of liability enquiry in cases involving misleading or deceptive conduct. This unfortunate mix-up has led to a misunderstanding of the role of reliance in cases of market-based causation. This article argues that, in a case of market-based causation, the concept of ‘reliance’ is not always relevant to the factual causation enquiry. Instead, reliance (or the absence of reliance) is best viewed as a normative issue going to a defendant’s scope of liability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":410319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Private Law - Torts eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Private Law - Torts eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3844518\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law - Torts eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3844518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

澳大利亚最近的决定为以“基于市场的”因果关系理论为前提的责任可能性打开了大门。本文旨在探讨这一新兴的索赔类别,特别是当基于误导或欺骗行为的指控时。具体来说,本文关注的是检验基于市场的因果关系的本质,并考虑“依赖”在基于市场的因果关系理论的案例中所起的作用。本文的核心论点是,在涉及误导或欺骗行为的案件中,对事实因果关系的调查与责任调查的范围合并是无益的。这种不幸的混淆导致了对依赖在基于市场的因果关系中的作用的误解。本文认为,在基于市场的因果关系中,“依赖”的概念并不总是与事实因果关系调查相关。相反,信赖(或缺乏信赖)最好被视为被告责任范围的规范性问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Misleading Conduct, Reliance and Market-Based Causation
Recent Australian decisions have opened the door to the possibility of liability premised on a ‘market-based’ theory of causation. This article is concerned to explore this emerging category of claims, particularly when founded upon an allegation of misleading or deceptive conduct. Specifically, this article is concerned to examine the nature of market-based causation and to consider the role that ‘reliance’ has in a case based on a market-based theory of causation. This article’s core contention is that the enquiry into factual causation has been unhelpfully merged with the scope of liability enquiry in cases involving misleading or deceptive conduct. This unfortunate mix-up has led to a misunderstanding of the role of reliance in cases of market-based causation. This article argues that, in a case of market-based causation, the concept of ‘reliance’ is not always relevant to the factual causation enquiry. Instead, reliance (or the absence of reliance) is best viewed as a normative issue going to a defendant’s scope of liability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信