A Comparative Study of Pure Economic Loss:Where Is Taiwan on the Map?

純粹經濟上損失之比較法研究：臺灣位於地圖何處？

本文探討各國侵權行為法對於純粹經濟上損失的不同規範，進行比較法研究，尤其著重德、法、英、美等國，同時也將臺灣法納入這張比較法的世界地圖，進行分析、比較。傳統通說認為被害人不得依據過失侵權責任主張純粹經濟上損失之損害賠償，除非法律另有特別規定。然而，有鑑於社會及科技日新月異，許多相關規範需要被重新評估。本文認為通說可能有過度解釋某些經典裁判之嫌，擴大適用於其他案例，但卻誤解了該等裁判背後的真義。問題癥結在於如何解釋法院的裁判，而不在於裁判的結果。本文主張重新檢視裁判的基本前提，包括事實、問題、假設和相關因素，以評估適用的合理性。本文依序介紹德國、法國、英國、美國和臺灣如何處理純粹經濟上損失，在美國，因各州不同的法律見解及認定，因此使比較法研究更具挑戰性。本文最終以一個比較表格作結，摘要上述各國對於不同類別純粹經濟上損失的觀點，期能提供讀者一個更全面的概覽。

This paper explores the complex issue of tort liability for pure economic loss in various jurisdictions, with a focus on Taiwan. Traditionally, many legal systems have denied recovery for pure economic loss in negligent torts, except under specific regulations. However, the ever-changing landscape of society and technology necessitates a reevaluation of established norms. The paper emphasizes that the prevailing view has often overextended its application, misinterpreting leading cases and wrongly denying recovery in situations where the leading cases did not require such denial. The problem lies in the interpretation of court decisions rather than the decisions themselves. The paper advocates for a comprehensive examination of the underlying premises of each precedent, including the facts, issues, assumptions, and relevant factors, to assess the soundness of justifications. The study then delves into how Germany, France, the U.K., the U.S., and Taiwan address pure economic loss. It also acknowledges the unique challenges in the U.S., where different states have distinct perspectives and judgments. As a result of the comparative study, the paper provides a comparative table summarizing the perspectives of different jurisdictions on various categories of pure economic losses, offering a comprehensive overview of the multifaceted legal scenarios.