德国法律中的法律无知:一个曾经严格的标准的衰落

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
G. Wagner, Greta Körner
{"title":"德国法律中的法律无知:一个曾经严格的标准的衰落","authors":"G. Wagner, Greta Körner","doi":"10.54648/erpl2021014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In times of ever-increasing complexity of the legal system, legal errors are inevitable. While the German Criminal Code lays out that a legal error leads to impunity of the perpetrator if unavoidable, legal error in private law has always remained a vague concept. In principle, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) excuses a wrongdoer who acted under legal error only in exceptional cases. According to this stringent approach, a party must not only be aware of the existing legal framework, but also anticipate future changes in case law. If the legal situation is unclear, a party must not assume that her own position will ultimately be upheld by the court, but that she will be found liable for a wrong. Under this doctrine, the only circumstances where legal error will be excused are unanticipated and unforeseeable revisions of case law by the supreme court.\nHowever, there is a general trend in all areas of private law to soften this stringent approach. In contract law, courts tend to be more lenient on the parties. In the context of contractual liability of the debtor, legal errors are more and more frequently excused under ‘special circumstances’. On the other hand, a creditor who sues for performance is not liable to the debtor for damages incurred in the course of proceedings if he carried out a ‘plausibility check’ regarding his own legal position before filing suit. In tort law, where courts are generally stricter when it comes to legal ignorance, individual judgments point to a more generous stance towards legal error and excuse tortfeasors more easily. In the area of prescription, courts hold that the limitation period only begins to run when the creditor can reasonably be expected to file an action in view of an uncertain legal situation.\nGerman case law on legal ignorance in private law resembles a potpourri of different legal standards, all of which aim to govern the exoneration of legal errors. A bright and clear line is not discernible and, therefore, a return to a more stringent standard seems desirable. This does not rule out a balancing of interests in each individual case nor taking into account the idiosyncrasies of the parties involved. We should not strive for a ‘one-size-fits-all solution’ but seek to formulate nuanced liability standards that are able to distinguish, e.g. between consumers and businesses. However, the aim here must always be to develop clear and stringent criteria, thus providing for legal certainty.certainty","PeriodicalId":43736,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Private Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal Ignorance in German Law: The Decline of a Once Stringent Standard\",\"authors\":\"G. Wagner, Greta Körner\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/erpl2021014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In times of ever-increasing complexity of the legal system, legal errors are inevitable. While the German Criminal Code lays out that a legal error leads to impunity of the perpetrator if unavoidable, legal error in private law has always remained a vague concept. In principle, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) excuses a wrongdoer who acted under legal error only in exceptional cases. According to this stringent approach, a party must not only be aware of the existing legal framework, but also anticipate future changes in case law. If the legal situation is unclear, a party must not assume that her own position will ultimately be upheld by the court, but that she will be found liable for a wrong. Under this doctrine, the only circumstances where legal error will be excused are unanticipated and unforeseeable revisions of case law by the supreme court.\\nHowever, there is a general trend in all areas of private law to soften this stringent approach. In contract law, courts tend to be more lenient on the parties. In the context of contractual liability of the debtor, legal errors are more and more frequently excused under ‘special circumstances’. On the other hand, a creditor who sues for performance is not liable to the debtor for damages incurred in the course of proceedings if he carried out a ‘plausibility check’ regarding his own legal position before filing suit. In tort law, where courts are generally stricter when it comes to legal ignorance, individual judgments point to a more generous stance towards legal error and excuse tortfeasors more easily. In the area of prescription, courts hold that the limitation period only begins to run when the creditor can reasonably be expected to file an action in view of an uncertain legal situation.\\nGerman case law on legal ignorance in private law resembles a potpourri of different legal standards, all of which aim to govern the exoneration of legal errors. A bright and clear line is not discernible and, therefore, a return to a more stringent standard seems desirable. This does not rule out a balancing of interests in each individual case nor taking into account the idiosyncrasies of the parties involved. We should not strive for a ‘one-size-fits-all solution’ but seek to formulate nuanced liability standards that are able to distinguish, e.g. between consumers and businesses. However, the aim here must always be to develop clear and stringent criteria, thus providing for legal certainty.certainty\",\"PeriodicalId\":43736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Review of Private Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Review of Private Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2021014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Private Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2021014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在法律制度日益复杂的时代,法律错误是不可避免的。虽然德国《刑法》规定,在不可避免的情况下,法律错误会导致犯罪者不受惩罚,但私法中的法律错误始终是一个模糊的概念。原则上,联邦法院(Bundesgerichtshof)只有在例外情况下才会原谅在法律错误下行事的违法者。根据这种严格的做法,当事人不仅要了解现有的法律框架,还要预测判例法未来的变化。如果法律情况不明确,一方当事人不能认为自己的立场最终会得到法院的支持,而是认为自己将被认定对错误负有责任。根据这一原则,法律错误可以得到原谅的唯一情况是最高法院对判例法进行的意外和不可预见的修订。然而,在私法的所有领域都有一种普遍趋势,即软化这种严格的做法。在合同法中,法院倾向于对当事人宽大处理。在债务人的合同责任方面,法律错误越来越多地在“特殊情况”下得到原谅。另一方面,如果债权人在提起诉讼之前对自己的法律地位进行了“合理性审查”,则债权人就诉讼过程中发生的损害赔偿不承担责任。在侵权行为法中,法院在法律无知方面通常更为严格,个人判决对法律错误的态度更为宽容,更容易为侵权行为开脱。在时效方面,法院认为,时效期间只有在考虑到不确定的法律情况,可以合理地预期债权人提起诉讼时才开始运行。德国关于私法中法律无知的判例法类似于不同法律标准的大杂烩,所有这些标准都旨在规范法律错误的免责。一条清晰的界线是无法分辨的,因此,回归到更严格的标准似乎是可取的。这并不排除在每个个案中平衡利益,也不排除考虑有关各方的特点。我们不应寻求“一刀切的解决方案”,而应寻求制定能够区分的细微责任标准,例如区分消费者和企业。然而,这里的目标必须始终是制定明确和严格的标准,从而提供法律上的确定性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legal Ignorance in German Law: The Decline of a Once Stringent Standard
In times of ever-increasing complexity of the legal system, legal errors are inevitable. While the German Criminal Code lays out that a legal error leads to impunity of the perpetrator if unavoidable, legal error in private law has always remained a vague concept. In principle, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) excuses a wrongdoer who acted under legal error only in exceptional cases. According to this stringent approach, a party must not only be aware of the existing legal framework, but also anticipate future changes in case law. If the legal situation is unclear, a party must not assume that her own position will ultimately be upheld by the court, but that she will be found liable for a wrong. Under this doctrine, the only circumstances where legal error will be excused are unanticipated and unforeseeable revisions of case law by the supreme court. However, there is a general trend in all areas of private law to soften this stringent approach. In contract law, courts tend to be more lenient on the parties. In the context of contractual liability of the debtor, legal errors are more and more frequently excused under ‘special circumstances’. On the other hand, a creditor who sues for performance is not liable to the debtor for damages incurred in the course of proceedings if he carried out a ‘plausibility check’ regarding his own legal position before filing suit. In tort law, where courts are generally stricter when it comes to legal ignorance, individual judgments point to a more generous stance towards legal error and excuse tortfeasors more easily. In the area of prescription, courts hold that the limitation period only begins to run when the creditor can reasonably be expected to file an action in view of an uncertain legal situation. German case law on legal ignorance in private law resembles a potpourri of different legal standards, all of which aim to govern the exoneration of legal errors. A bright and clear line is not discernible and, therefore, a return to a more stringent standard seems desirable. This does not rule out a balancing of interests in each individual case nor taking into account the idiosyncrasies of the parties involved. We should not strive for a ‘one-size-fits-all solution’ but seek to formulate nuanced liability standards that are able to distinguish, e.g. between consumers and businesses. However, the aim here must always be to develop clear and stringent criteria, thus providing for legal certainty.certainty
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
25
×
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