2011•Journal of Private International LawRequires access

Concurrent Causes of Action in the Rome I and II Regulations

Marcin Czepelak

Open publisher page 13 citations

Abstract

Most contemporary systems of private law distinguish between various regimes of responsibility. The main, although disputed, distinction is made between contractual and tort liability, albeit the categorisation usually goes far beyond that. A common lawyer would probably accept that a claim can be based on a contract, a tort, an equitable wrong or on restitution. On the other hand, a civil lawyer, or at least one who has some grasp of Roman law, would be more willing to concede that obligations can arise ex contractu, ex delicto, quasi ex contractu and quasi ex delicto. These differences notwithstanding, national legal orders that acknowledge multiple grounds for claims have to address the same issue, namely whether it is possible for a plaintiff to avail himself of different causes of action or whether the claim should be confined to one of them exclusively. There is no uniform solution to this problem as some systems accept the concurrence of different causes of action and other systems reject such a possibility.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Most contemporary systems of private law distinguish between various regimes of responsibility. The main, although disputed, distinction is made between contractual and tort liability, albeit the categorisation usually goes far beyond that. A common lawyer would probably accept that a claim can be based on a contract, a tort, an equitable wrong or on restitution. On the other hand, a civil lawyer, or at least one who has some grasp of Roman law, would be more willing to concede that obligations can arise ex contractu, ex delicto, quasi ex contractu and quasi ex delicto. These differences notwithstanding, national legal orders that acknowledge multiple grounds for claims have to address the same issue, namely whether it is possible for a plaintiff to avail himself of different causes of action or whether the claim should be confined to one of them exclusively. There is no uniform solution to this problem as some systems accept the concurrence of different causes of action and other systems reject such a possibility.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Most contemporary systems of private law distinguish between various regimes of responsibility. The main, although disputed, distinction is made between contractual and tort liability, albeit the categorisation usually goes far beyond that. A common lawyer would probably accept that a claim can be based on a contract, a tort, an equitable wrong or on restitution. On the other hand, a civil lawyer, or at least one who has some grasp of Roman law, would be more willing to concede that obligations can arise ex contractu, ex delicto, quasi ex contractu and quasi ex delicto. These differences notwithstanding, national legal orders that acknowledge multiple grounds for claims have to address the same issue, namely whether it is possible for a plaintiff to avail himself of different causes of action or whether the claim should be confined to one of them exclusively. There is no uniform solution to this problem as some systems accept the concurrence of different causes of action and other systems reject such a possibility.

Key concepts: Plaintiff, Tort, Concurrence, Action (physics), Law, Restitution, Cause of action, Liability

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Concurrent Causes of Action in the Rome I and II Regulations — Research Paper | ScholarLens