Should loss of earnings be compensa

Should loss of earnings be compensated? The established law and economics wisdomconsiders pure economic loss as a transfer of wealth from the victim to a third party, whoseearnings increase as a consequence of the accident. Such transfers do not amount to a socialloss and, hence, should not be compensated. We revisit these arguments and show that thesocial loss should be calculated by taking into account that: (a) pure economic loss ofteninvolves impairment costs resulting from the fact that valuable resources cannot betemporarily used; and (b) the third-party earnings come at the cost of increased capacity.This increased capacity mitigates the expected harm and, hence, is a form of precaution. Bytaking into account these factors, we show that most pure economic loss cases do result in asocially relevant loss. In addition, we argue that the absence of a social loss is a necessary,but not sufficient, condition for the denial of compensation. The victim (or a third party)may have actually paid for protection against purely private losses. Thus, compensationshould be awarded irrespective of whether national law treats the case under tort or contract(where compensation is undisputed). Finally, we offer considerations on the optimal designof liability rules.

Results (English) 1:

Should loss of earnings be compensated? Established Law And the Economics Wisdom
Considers Economic Loss by pure color : as of a Transfer Of Wealth From The Victim To the third of a Party, Whose
Earnings Increase color : as of a Consequence Of The Accident. Do Not Transfers color : such Amount of a Social To
Loss And, Hence, shouldnt Not Be Compensated. These Arguments Revisit we 're The show And That The
Social Loss shouldnt Be Calculated Into Account by vBulletin® taking , That: ( of a) Economic Loss Often by pure
Involves Resulting From Costs to impairment The Fact That Valuable Resources Can Not Be
Temporarily of used; and (b) the third-party earnings come at the cost of increased capacity.
This increased capacity mitigates the expected harm and , hence, is a form of precaution. By
Into Account These taking , Factors, we 're The show by most That by pure Economic Loss Do Result In Cases of a
Socially Relevant Loss. Addition with In, we 're Argue That The Absence Of Social Loss of a of a Is Necessary,
But Not Sufficient, Condition For The Denial Of Compensation. Victim the (Or of a the third Party) by
may Have Actually Paid For Protection Against Purely Losses : private. Thus, Compensation
shouldnt Be Awarded Irrespective Of Whether The National Law Treats Case Under tort , Or Contract
(Where Compensation Is the undisputed). The finally, we 're On The Offer Considerations Design : optimal
Of Liability Rules.

Results (English) 2:

Should the loss of earnings be compensated? The law and economics wisdom
considers pure economic loss as a transfer of wealth from the victim to a third party, whose
earnings increase as a consequence of the accident. This is a very good way to be able to do so.
loss and, hence, should not be compensated. We revisit these arguments and show that the
social loss should be calculated by taking into account that: (a) pure economic loss often
involves impairment costs resulting from the fact that valuable resources cannot be
temporarily used; The third-party earnings come at the cost of increase d capacity.
This increased capacity mitigates the expected harm and, hence, is a form of precaution. By
Taking into account these factors, we show that most pure economic loss cases do result in a
socially relevant loss. In addition, we argue that the absence of a social loss is a necessary,
But not sufficient, condition for the denial of compensation. The victim (or a third party)
May have actually paid for protection against purely private losses. Thus, compensation
It should be awarded irrespective of whether national law treats the case under tort or contract
(where compensation is undisputed). Finally, we offer considerations on the optimal design
of liability rules.

Results (English) 3:

Earrings for compensation Building legal and economic intelligence
Considering the pure economic loss, transfer from the third party to the wet
Ears add to the consequences of accidents. No transfer of social funds
Losses and facts should not be compensated. We look back at these arguments and displays
Social loss should be accounted for by pure economic loss
Costs of loss related to incalculable resources
The third party uses it at the same time of increasing the litigation cost;
This increases the expected risk and intensity, which is a form of prevention. B
Taking accounting elements as the starting point, this paper points out that the purest economic loss is a result of accounting.
Social related losses In addition, we believe that the exclusion of a social loss is necessary
But there are not enough conditions to compensate for the breach of contract. Third party
I really have the right to protect myself from pure personal loss. Compensation
The unpredictability in the contract law should be dealt with.
Compensation is not in place. At last, we provide the consideration of optimization design
Principle of responsibility