经济损失规则的边界功能

The Boundary-line Function of the Economic Loss Rule

经济损失规则的概念和适用范围仍是争议的主题,这一规则本身的混乱伴随着该规则产生原因的更大的不确定性。区分侵权法和合同法的边界功能是经济损失规则令人信服的理论基础,但是一些重要的原则限制了边界功能的适用范围。在涉及合同关系的案件中解释及适用经济损失规则,只有关注诉讼当事人的实际行动才能恰当地实现该规则的边界功能。首先,如果原告不是某个协议的当事人,那么就没有任何理由限制原告依据侵权法享有的任何权利。其次,不能基于一个不是真实存在的合同提供的假想救济以及合同对纯粹经济损失的补偿具有假想的优先权限制原告的权利。再次,如果被告违反了一项独立于合同责任的侵权法义务,当事人之间的合同没有明确地或足够充分地暗示取代侵权法的救济,当事人则有权获得侵权法的救济。

The terms and scope of the economic loss rule are the subject of disagreement, and the confusion over the rule is accompanied by further uncertainty as to the reasons for the rule. The convincing rationale for the rule is that it performs a critical boundary-line function, separating the law of torts from the law of contracts. Nevertheless, important principles limit the scope of the economic loss rule in reference to its boundary-line function. In interpreting and applying the rule in cases involving contractual relationships, the boundary-line function can be prop- edy performed only by focusing on the actual conduct of the parties to the litigation. Firstly, an agreement to which the plaintiff is not a party provides no basis for limiting whatever rights the plaintiff may have under tort law. Secondly, hypothetical remedies under nonexistent contracts or a supposed preference for compensating pure economic loss solely under contract principles have no place in the analysis. Thirdly, if the defendant has breached a tort duty that arises independent of contractual obligations, that breach should be actionable unless the parties＇ contract expressly or by necessary implication preempts such relief.