实际损失假象

Andrew Fell, Iain Field
{"title":"实际损失假象","authors":"Andrew Fell, Iain Field","doi":"10.1017/s0008197324000230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On the orthodox account of the private law compensatory principle, the claimant is compensated for the loss that they actually suffered because of the defendant’s wrong. Although the principle has various exceptions, it is widely accepted in both case law and academic commentary. We argue that it is nevertheless flawed, both doctrinally and theoretically. Claimants are never really compensated for their actual loss, and, contrary to popular belief, leading theoretical accounts of private law compensation (corrective justice and the continuity thesis) suggest that a principle of compensation for actual loss is not desirable in any event.","PeriodicalId":501295,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE ACTUAL LOSS ILLUSION\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Fell, Iain Field\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0008197324000230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On the orthodox account of the private law compensatory principle, the claimant is compensated for the loss that they actually suffered because of the defendant’s wrong. Although the principle has various exceptions, it is widely accepted in both case law and academic commentary. We argue that it is nevertheless flawed, both doctrinally and theoretically. Claimants are never really compensated for their actual loss, and, contrary to popular belief, leading theoretical accounts of private law compensation (corrective justice and the continuity thesis) suggest that a principle of compensation for actual loss is not desirable in any event.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Cambridge Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Cambridge Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197324000230\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197324000230","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

按照私法补偿原则的正统说法,原告应就其因被告的过错而实际遭受的损失获得补偿。虽然该原则有各种例外情况,但在判例法和学术评论中被广泛接受。我们认为,该原则在理论和实践上都存在缺陷。索赔人从未真正获得对其实际损失的赔偿,而且,与人们普遍认为的相反,私法赔偿的主要理论(矫正正义和连续性理论)表明,对实际损失的赔偿原则无论如何都是不可取的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE ACTUAL LOSS ILLUSION
On the orthodox account of the private law compensatory principle, the claimant is compensated for the loss that they actually suffered because of the defendant’s wrong. Although the principle has various exceptions, it is widely accepted in both case law and academic commentary. We argue that it is nevertheless flawed, both doctrinally and theoretically. Claimants are never really compensated for their actual loss, and, contrary to popular belief, leading theoretical accounts of private law compensation (corrective justice and the continuity thesis) suggest that a principle of compensation for actual loss is not desirable in any event.
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