فایل ورد کامل هماهنگ سازی قانون شبه جرم: قانون شبه جرم و تحلیل اقتصادی تطبیقی

توجه : به همراه فایل word این محصول فایل پاورپوینت (PowerPoint) و اسلاید های آن به صورت هدیه ارائه خواهد شد

این مقاله، ترجمه شده یک مقاله مرجع و معتبر انگلیسی می باشد که به صورت بسیار عالی توسط متخصصین این رشته ترجمه شده است و به صورت فایل ورد (microsoft word) ارائه می گردد

متن داخلی مقاله بسیار عالی، پر محتوا و قابل درک می باشد و شما از استفاده ی آن بسیار لذت خواهید برد. ما عالی بودن این مقاله را تضمین می کنیم

فایل ورد این مقاله بسیار خوب تایپ شده و قابل کپی و ویرایش می باشد و تنظیمات آن نیز به صورت عالی انجام شده است؛ به همراه فایل ورد این مقاله یک فایل پاور پوینت نیز به شما ارئه خواهد شد که دارای یک قالب بسیار زیبا و تنظیمات نمایشی متعدد می باشد

توجه : در صورت مشاهده بهم ریختگی احتمالی در متون زیر ،دلیل ان کپی کردن این مطالب از داخل فایل می باشد و در فایل اصلی فایل ورد کامل هماهنگ سازی قانون شبه جرم: قانون شبه جرم و تحلیل اقتصادی تطبیقی،به هیچ وجه بهم ریختگی وجود ندارد

تعداد صفحات این فایل: ۲۴ صفحه

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسیعنوان انگلیسی:Harmonizing Tort Law: A Comparative Tort Law and Economics Analysis~~en~~

۱۵-۱ Introduction

[۴۳۵] Differences between tort law systems can be analysed from different perspectives. Take for instance liability for pure economic loss, which is prototypical of an ongoing debate among comparative tort law scholars. Tort law systems in Europe diverge considerably in their dogmatic approach to such cases, regarding both the extent to which such claims are acknowledged at all and the legal reasoning used for doing so. In common law systems, the so-called ‘exclusionary rule’ is predominant. Germanic legal systems are hostile to claims for pure economic loss, but do acknowledge certain categories in which protection is offered. Contrastingly, the franco-legal systems tend to be more receptive to claims for pure economic loss as such. There are historical, dogmatic and technical legal explanations for the differences in treatment of pure economic loss and indeed differences between tort law systems as a whole. These explanations have been reported extensively in legal literature and they explain the differences between the main families of tort law in Europe to a considerable extent.

By contrast, comparative law and economics offers both a positive and normative economic analysis of these differences between tort law systems. Cf. M. Faure, 2003, p. 33-34. For example, in the area of pure economic loss, see the comparative economic analysis of pure economic loss by Francesco Parisi, 2003, Francesco Parisi, Vernon Valentine Palmer and Mauro Bussani, 2007. Concerning pure economic loss scholars have put forward several economic justifications for upholding the ‘exclusionary rule’. Others have argued that under specific circumstances there are good reasons for allowing claims for pure economic loss. This illustrates that comparative law as well as law and economics have much to gain from a mutual exchange of insights and ideas. On this topic see, e.g., W. Bishop, 1982; M.J. Rizzo, 1982; W. Bishop, 1982*; W. Bishop, 1982; William Bishop, 1986; Israel Gilead, 1997; Fernando Gmez and Juan Antonio Ruiz, 2004; Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci and Hans-Bernd Schfer, 2007.

[۴۳۶] The positive comparative law and economics analysis usually focuses on the central idea that differences between tort law systems are the result of differing values and preferences in domestic politics, legislation and courts. Cf. M. Faure, 2008, p. 40. Systems may thus spontaneously develop in converging or diverging directions. On the economics of convergence see, e.g., the game-theoretical analysis of convergence by Arnald J. Kanning, 2003, p. 12 ff. The topic of convergence is closely related to the economic analysis of ‘legal transplants’. See, e.g., Ugo A. Mattei, Luisa Antoniolli and Andrea Rossato, 2000, p. 509 ff.; Jrg Fedtke, 2006, Ugo A. Mattei, 1997, p. 101 ff., 434 ff.; A. Ogus, 1999, p. 409; Heico Kerkmeester and Louis Visscher, 2003, p. 5 ff. On methods of convergence see, e.g., Jan Smits, 2006, p. 66-67.

A comparative analysis also allows us to test the effectiveness of legal regimes and to perform cost-benefit analysis on the various alternative tort systems. Such comparative analysis may show that the reduction in tertiary accident costs of hospital injuries in legal systems adhering to a no-fault compensation scheme is superior to legal systems using faultbased tortious liability in such cases. See, e.g., the comparative legal and economic analysis by Rui Casco and Ruud Hendrickx, 2007.

Moreover, comparative law and economics may show that, although the legal reasoning and historical roots of specific items within tort law systems vary, the ultimate rationales may be identical. Cf. the distinction between ‘working rules’ and ‘legal formants’ by Ugo A. Mattei, Luisa Antoniolli and Andrea Rossato, 2000, p. 507 (cf. Ugo A. Mattei, 1997, p. 69 ff), or between actual and superficial differences by A. Ogus, 1999, p. 405. In this respect, for instance, both strict liability and fault-based liability with a rebuttable presumption of fault may serve exactly the same goals although the legal foundations are not identical. Cf. M. Faure, 2003, p. 60. As far as the normative comparative analysis is concerned, such efforts are usually set against the background of the Calabresi framework. Seminal Guido Calabresi, 1970. Cf. R. Cooter and T. Ulen 2008, p. 336 ff. For Europe, see, e.g., Hans-Bernd Schfer and Claus Ott, 2004, p. 113 ff.

$$en!!