Pure economic loss has been a frontier tort law issue both in Europe and the United States. There are two rules to follow: one would exclude pure economic loss from recovery; the other would allow it. It totally depends on the jurisdiction one is in. However, the mystery is that one cannot explain why cases often come out the same despite the difference in official rules. Even more so, when one looks at Chinese law, when a clear rule has not been worked out yet. Somehow, the risk compensation principle developed by professor James Gordley explains Chinese judicial practice coherently. Interestingly, Chinese judges would not have heard of Gordley's theory when they decided the cases and Gordley did not have Chinese law in mind when he developed the principle to explain the Western law. This article discovers and explains how the Aristotelian idea of commutative justice is an unstated principle that coincidentally explains the Chinese judicial practice.

The rule against recovery of pure economic loss in China: a misconceived doctrine

Jiang, Hao
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
2021

Abstract

Pure economic loss has been a frontier tort law issue both in Europe and the United States. There are two rules to follow: one would exclude pure economic loss from recovery; the other would allow it. It totally depends on the jurisdiction one is in. However, the mystery is that one cannot explain why cases often come out the same despite the difference in official rules. Even more so, when one looks at Chinese law, when a clear rule has not been worked out yet. Somehow, the risk compensation principle developed by professor James Gordley explains Chinese judicial practice coherently. Interestingly, Chinese judges would not have heard of Gordley's theory when they decided the cases and Gordley did not have Chinese law in mind when he developed the principle to explain the Western law. This article discovers and explains how the Aristotelian idea of commutative justice is an unstated principle that coincidentally explains the Chinese judicial practice.
2021
2021
Jiang, Hao; Chan, Peter C. H.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Jiang Countersigned-2.pdf

non disponibili

Descrizione: Publication agreement
Tipologia: Allegato per valutazione Bocconi (Attachment for Bocconi evaluation)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 914.83 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
914.83 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri
96.2Jiang13-Author Review.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print (Post-print document)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 579.76 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
579.76 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri
Hao-Acceptance.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Allegato per valutazione Bocconi (Attachment for Bocconi evaluation)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 124.28 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
124.28 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri
96TulLRev261.pdf

non disponibili

Descrizione: article
Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Publisher's layout)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 1.98 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.98 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11565/4037758
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact