O WADLIWEJ OBIEKTYWIZACJI SZKODY
LOOKING AT FLAWED OBJECTIVIZATION OF DAMAGE

Summary/Abstract: The author analyzes the instances of the objectivization of damage that is used in practice but that has no regulatory basis. He reviews the problem of the degree of generalization in the course of determining the normal causal relationship, pointing to the inadmissibility of equating the normal and the typical effects of the event leading to the damage. The increase in the probability of the occurrence of the loss effect does not need to be significant; it just has to be perceptible. Not every breach of another party’s goods constitutes damage. There are the effects of such breach affecting the goods of the injured party that constitute damage. We assess these effects based on the concept of the causal relationship referred to as conditio sine qua non, without applying the normalcy criteria in this instance. The differential method is criticized for allegedly being abstract. It is juxtaposed to the so-called objective method. The author critically reviews the objective method, pointing to the variability of the damage over time and the necessity of indemnifying indirect losses and the pure economic loss. The objective method bypasses these circumstances. In a further section of the article, the author examines the indemnification of the loss of the possibility of using a thing, the loss of possession, breaches of rights attaching to intangible assets via a sham license fee, and the release of the gain made by the party in breach, and the so-called cost-estimate method of determining the compensation as the expenses that the injured party is to bear the expenses in the future in order to repair the damaged goods.

• Details
• Contents