Contract protection against encroachment of other parties: A search for theoretical grounds

V.G. Golubtsov

Perm State University, Perm, 614000 Russia

E-mail: predprim.pravo@gmail.com

Received January 20, 2021

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Full text PDF

DOI: 10.26907/2541-7738.2021.2.35-50

For citation: Golubtsov V.G. Contract protection against encroachment of other parties: A search for theoretical grounds. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye Nauki, 2021, vol. 163, no. 2, pp. 35–50. doi: 10.26907/2541-7738.2021.2.35-50. (In Russian)

Abstract

Analysis of problems related to the invasion of third parties into other people’s contractual relations has rapidly acquired relevance in both theoretical and practical terms. The main issues related to them have already come into the research focus, but some of the important aspects remain understudied. The article supports the prevailing view that Russian legislators should pay more attention to the above-stated problems. The known theoretical approaches to understanding and solving them are analyzed. Interventional behavior is considered from the perspective of national tort law. The following theoretical conclusions are drawn: the traditional understanding of civil liability adopted in the Russian doctrine, as well as the existing systematics and technical and legal techniques of the Russian tort law, serve as an obstacle for introduction of such type of tort as causing harm to the parties of contractual relations by third parties into this institution. These conclusions are confirmed by the results of a comparison of the Russian tort law system with the English one, which is among the three (along with those in Germany and France) most developed systems in the world and employs such methods of responding to the invasion of third parties in contractual relations that are most widely discussed in the modern national discourses.

Keywords: invasion of third parties into contract, relative rights, tort suit, general tort, direct financial losses

References

1. Chupurnov A.S. Russian judicial practice in intervention. Interventsiya v chuzhie dogovornye otosheniya: osparivanie sdelki ili vzyskanie ubytkov: Nauch.-prakt. kruglyi stol [Intervention into Someone Else’s Contractual Relations: Challenging the Transaction or Recovering Losses: Sci.-Pract. Panel Discuss.]. Available at: https://m-logos.ru/img/Sudebnaya_praktika_VS_Chuprunov_m_logos.pdf. (In Russian)
2. Are Absolute Protection and Opposability of Rights of Obligation Permissible?: Sci. Panel Discuss. of the M-Logos Legal Institute, 22 Sept, 2014. Available at: https://m-logos.ru/mlogos_publication/ nauchnyi_kruglyi_stol_uridicheskogo_instituta_m-logos_po_teme_dopustimy_li_absolutnaya_zashita_ i_protivopostavimost_ obyazatelstvennyh_prav/. (In Russian)
3. Matveev G.K. Anglo-amerikanskoe deliktnoe pravo [Anglo-American Tort Law]. Moscow, Yurid. Lit., 1973. 174 p. (In Russian)
4. Intervention in Someone Else’s Contractual Relations: Challenging the Transaction or Recovering Losses: Sci.-Pract. Panel Discuss., 2019, Feb. 1. Available at: https://m-logos.ru/mlogos_publication/ nauchno-praktichesky_kruglyi_stol_intervenciya_v_chugie_dogovornye_otnosheniya_ osparivanie_ sdelki_ili_vzyskanie_ubytkov. (In Russian)
5. Karapetov A.G. Sdelki, predstavitel’stvo, iskovaya davnost’: postateinyi kommentarii k stat’yam 153–208 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Transactions, Representation, Limitation of Action: Article-for-Article Commentary to Articles 153–208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, Statut, 2018. 944 p. (In Russian)
6. Gutnikov O.V. Tort liability for violation of relative rights: Development prospects in Russian law. Zakon, 2017, no. 1, pp. 22–37. (In Russian)
7. Tarasov P.A. Correlation of the violating party’s liability and the defaulting intervener’s tort liability. Vestnik Ekonomicheskogo Pravisudiya RF, 2020, no. 10, pp. 135–154. (In Russian)
8. Aloyan A.E. Models of absolute protection of rights of obligation. Zakon, 2015, no. 8, pp. 138–146. (In Russian)
9. Mackaay Ejan. Pravo i ekonomika dlya kontinental’noi pravovoi traditsii [Law and Economics for Civil Law Systems]. Moscow, Delo, 2019. 624 p. (In Russian)
10. Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie Germanii: Vvod. Zakon k Grazhdanskomu ulozheniyu [The German Civil Code: Introductory Act to the Civil Code]. Makovskii A.K. et al. (Eds.). Moscow, Wolters Kluwer, 2004. 728 p. (German and European Laws; Book 1). (In Russian)
11. Ketz H., Zweigert К. Vvedenie v sravnitel’noe pravovedenie v sfere chastnogo prava [Introduction to Comparative Private Law]. Vol. 2: Contract. Unjust enrichment. Tort. Moscow, Mezhdunar. Otnosheniya, 1998. 510 p. (In Russian)
12. von Bar Ch. Liability for providing information and opinions causing “net economic loss” to third parties. Pravovedenie, 1997, no. 2, pp. 128–147. (In Russian)
13. Sinitsyn S.A. The general doctrine of absolute and relative subjective civil rights. Doct. Law Diss. Moscow, 2017. 604 p. (In Russian)
14. Karapetov A.G. Models of civil rights protection: An economic perspective. Vestnik Ekonomicheskogo Pravosudiya RF, 2014, no. 11, pp. 24–80. (In Russian)
15. Chupurnov A.S. Liability of an intervener for invading someone else’s contractual relations in England. Interventsiya v chuzhie dogovornye otosheniya: osparivanie sdelki ili vzyskanie ubytkov: Nauch.-prakt. kruglyi stol [Intervention into Someone Else’s Contractual Relations: Challenging the Transaction or Recovering Losses: Sci.-Pract. Panel Discuss.]. Available at: https://m-logos.ru/mlogos_publication/nauchno-praktichesky_kruglyi_stol_intervenciya_v_chugie_dogovornye_ otnosheniya_osparivanie_sdelki_ili_vzyskanie_ubytkov. (In Russian)
16. Dogovor kak obshchepravovaya tsennost’ [Contract as a General Legal Value]. Zhuikov V.M., Gabov A.V., Sinitsyn S.A. (Eds.). Moscow, Statut, 2018. 381 p. (In Russian)
17. Gadzhiev G.A. Contract as a general legal value (on legal epistemology genesis). Zhurnal Rossiiskogo Prava, 2019, no. 1, pp. 5–18. doi: 10.12737/art_2019_1_1. (In Russian)
18. Makovskaya A.A. The reform of contractual law in France. New provisions of the French Civil Code. Vestnik Ekonomicheskogo Pravosudiya RF, 2016, no. 8, pp. 76–101. (In Russian)
19. Sinitsyn S.A. Absolute protection of relative rights: Causes, consequences, and correspondence to the existing classification of subjective rights. Vestnik Grazhdanskogo Prava, 2015, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 7–44. (In Russian)
20. Belov V.A. What is meant by competition law? Zakon, 2020, no. 2, pp. 44–64. (In Russian)
21. Evstigneev E.A. General tort principle: Modern position and prospects of use (part one). Vestnik Grazhdanskogo Prava, 2017, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 45–83. (In Russian)
22. Egorova M.A., Krylov V.G., Romanov A.K. Deliktnye obyazatel’stva i deliktnaya otvetstvennost’ v angliiskom, nemetskom i frantsuzskom prave [Tort Obligations and Tort Liability in English, German and French Law]. Moscow, Yustitsinform, 2017. 376 p. (Education). (In Russian)
23. Budylin S.L. How to punish an intervener? Invading contractual relations: Legal consequences in common law countries. Zakon, 2019, Jan. 23. Available at: https://zakon.ru/blog/2019/01/23/ kak_ nakazat_interventa_vmeshatelstvo_v_dogovornye_otnosheniya_pravovye_posledstviya_v_ stranah_obsche/. (In Russian)
24. Tomsinov A.V. Ponyatie dogovornykh ubytkov v prave Anglii, SShA i Rossii [The Concept of Contractual Losses in the Law of England, the USA, and Russia]. Moscow, Zertsalo, 2010. 184 p. (In Russian)
25. Sinyavskaya M.S. Breach of contract and its consequences: A comparative legal analysis. In: Aktual’nye problemy grazhdanskogo prava [Urgent Problems of Civil Law]. Moscow, Norma, 2005, no. 9, pp. 407–459. (In Russian)
26. Makovskii A.L. O kodifikatsii grazhdanskogo prava (1922–2006) [On Codification of Civil Law (1922–2006)]. Moscow, Statut, 2010. 736 p. (In Russian)
27. Khuzhin A.M. On the transformation of the general tort principle: Analysis of legislation and judicial practice. Yuridicheskaya Tekhnika, 2020, no. 14, pp. 340–342. (In Russian)
28. Tuktarov Yu.E. Net economic losses. In: Ubytki i praktika ikh vozmeshcheniya [Losses and Ways to Recover Them]. Moscow, Statut, 2006, pp. 138–168. (In Russian)
29. Bogdanov D.E. Analysis of the legal approaches to recovering net economic losses in foreign law. Zhurnal Rossiiskogo Prava, 2012, no. 3, pp. 82–91. (In Russian)
30. Egorov K.F. Net economic losses in the Russian judicial practice. Voprosy Rossiiskoi Yustitsii, 2020, no. 9, pp. 299–307. (In Russian)
31. Kopyakov A.A. The problem of recovering net economic losses in Russian civil law. Vestnik Grazhdanskogo Prava, 2020, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 146–196. doi: 10.24031/1992-2043-2020-20-1-146-196. (In Russian)
32. Lugmanov R.R. Tort law as a means of recovering net economic losses. Vestnik Ekonomicheskogo Pravosudiya RF, 2019, no. 2, pp. 115–153. (In Russian)
33. Tamaev R. Prospects for recovering net economic losses under Russian civil law: A cessionary approach. Chistye ekonomicheskie ubytki v rossiiskom prave (case-study): Nauch.-prakt. kruglyi stol [Net Economic Losses in Russian Law (Case-Study): Sci.-Pract. Panel Discuss.]. Available at: https://m-logos.ru/mlogos_publication/nauchno-praktichesky_kruglyi_stol_chistye_ekonomicheskie_ ubytki_v_rossyskom_prave_case-study/. (In Russian)
34. Evstigneev E.A. Correlation of guilt and causation in tort law. Vestnik Grazhdanskogo Prava, 2020, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 33–59. doi: 10.24031/1992-2043-2020-20-1-33-59. (In Russian)
35. Belov V.A. Finding a dedicated “tort expert” among our modern lawyers is problematic, if not impossible: Interview with Vadim Belov. Conducted by D. Korchagin. Zakon, 2020, 14 Apr. Available at: https://zakon.ru/discussion/2020/4/14/najti_sredi_nashih_sovremennyh_yuristov_chistogo_deliktnika_esli_ne_nevozmozhno_to_ochen_problematic/. (In Russian)

The content is available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.