Loss of Chance Damages in Competitions, Tenders and Trials in German Law

The paper examines the problem of compensation for damages for the loss of chance in the future (winning a tender, competition, litigation) and the evolution of views on it in the German legal order. The difference between this concept and loss of profit is considered. It is concluded that the loss of chance can be considered as an element of a cause-and-effect relationship that limits the amount of damages subject to compensation by the probability of a favorable consequence occurring, and as a separate benefit subject to civil protection using a method similar to that used for compensation of «purely economic losses». The author puts a special focus on the rule on the ability of the court to determine the amount of damages at its own discretion in the event of uncertainty in their size, which is extremely favorable to compensation for lost chances. In addition, the effectiveness of compensation for harm proportional to the lost chance is considered from the point of view of economic analysis of law. A comparative legal study of this institution in other legal orders proves the absence of barriers to compensation for losses of this kind in all continental systems of justice, the Russian one included.

1. Agarkov M. Uchenie o tsennykh bumagakh. — M.: Finstatinform, 1993. — 144 s.

2. Baybak V. V. Utrata blagopriyatnoy vozmozhnosti (loss of a chance) kak raznovidnost dogovornykh ubytkov // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. — 2015. — № 5. — S. 63–73.

3. Bogdanov D. E. Analiz pravovykh podkhodov k vozmeshcheniyu chistykh ekonomicheskikh poter v zarubezhnom prave // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2012. — № 3. — S. 82–91.

4. Demm Zh. Reforma nemetskogo zakonodatelstva o zashchite konkurentsii // Lex russica. — 2015. — № 12.

5. Dondokov A. I. Doktrina Loss of Chance v angliyskom prave // Zakon. — 2013. — № 7. — S. 150–155.

6. Karapetov A. G. Modeli zashchity grazhdanskikh prav: ekonomicheskiy vzglyad. Chasti 1, 2 // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya. — 2014. — № 11, 12.

7. Kozlov I. A. Doktrina utraty shansa: obshchee opisanie kontseptsii na osnove obzora modelnykh kazusov // International Law Journal. — 2021. — T. 4. — № 5. — S. 151–156.

8. Kotsiol Kh.: Blesk i nishcheta nemetskoy tsivilisticheskoy dogmatiki. Nemetskoe pravo — primer dlya Evropy? // Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava. — 2012. — № 6.

9. Ovsyannikova A. O. Kompensatsiya ubytkov, vyzvannykh «obmanom doveriya» k ispolneniyu sdelki // Opyty tsivilisticheskogo issledovaniya: sbornik statey / ruk. avt. koll. i otv. red. A. M. Shirvindt, N. B. Shcherbakov. Vyp. 3: Spetsialnyy vypusk k yubileyu professora Evgeniya Alekseevicha Sukhanova. — M.: Statut, 2019. — S. 247–290.

10. Pokrovskiy I. A. Osnovnye problemy grazhdanskogo prava. — Izd. 3‑e, ster. — M.: Statut, 2001.

11. Silkina G. Yu. Teoriya prinyatiya resheniy i upravlenie riskami. Modeli konfliktov, neopredelennosti, riska: ucheb. posobie. — SPb., 2003. — 72 s.

12. Shapp Ya. Sistema germanskogo grazhdanskogo prava: uchebnik / per. s nem. S. V. Koroleva. — M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2006. — 357 s.

13. Baron M., Marx F. Das neue Kartellgesetz: Einführung in die 6. GWB-Novelle und das Vergaberecht. 1999.

14. Bussani M., Palmer V. V. Pure economic loss in Europe. — Cambridge, 2003.

15. Fleischer H. Gelöste und ungelöste Probleme der gesellschaftsrechtlichen Geschäftschancenlehre // 2003 Neue Zeitschrift fur Gesellschaftsrecht.

16. Fleischer H. Schadensersatz für verlorene Chancen im Vertrags- und Deliktsrecht // Juristenzeitung, Zugleich Kölner Habilitationsvortrag, 1999. — P. 766–775.

17. Graziano T. K. The «Loss of a Chance» in European Private Law: «All or Nothing» or Partial Compensation in Cases of Uncertainty of Causation // Causation in Law. — Prague: Univerzita Karlowa, 2007.

18. Grunewald B. Die Haftung des Anwalts für fehlerhafte Beratung des Mandaten nach neuem Recht // AnwBL. — 5/2002. — P. 258–261.

19. Kershaw D. Lost in Translation: Corporate Opportunities in Comparative Perspective // Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. — 2005. — Vol. 25. — No. 4. — P. 603–630.

20. Lange H., Schiemann G. Schadensersatz. — Mohr Siebeck Verlag, 2003. — 826 p.

21. Magnus U. Causation in German Tort Law // Unification of Tort Law: Causation / ed. by J. Spier. — Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000.

22. Mäsch G. Chance und Schaden. — Mohr Siebeck Verlag, 2004. — 468 p.

23. McBride N., Bagshaw R. Tort law. — 4th ed. — Pearson, 2012. — 934 p.

24. Müller-Stoy W.: Schadensersatz fur verlorene Chancen — eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung — Freiburg, 1973.

25. Olson W. Overdeterrence and the Problem of Comparative Risk // Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science. — 1988. — No. 37(1). — P. 42–53.

26. Peel W. E., Goudkamp J. Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort. — 19th ed. — Thomson Reuters, 2014. — 1010 p.

27. Pure Economic Loss / ed. by W. H. van Boom, H. Koziol, C. A. Witting. — 2004. — 59 p.

28. Robinson G. Probabilistic Causation and Compensation for Tortious Risk Critical Issues in Tort Law Reform: A Search for Principles // 14 Journal of Legal Studies. — 1985. — P. 779–798.

29. Schäfer H.‑V., Ott C. Lehrbuch der ökonomischen Analyse des Zivilrechts. — 5. Auflage. — Springer Gabler, 2012. — 826 S.

30. Shavell S. Economic Analysis of Accident Law. — Harvard University Press, 1987.

31. The Limits Liability; Keeping the Floodgates Shut / J. Spier (ed.). — The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996. — 196 p.

32. Stauch M. The Law of Medical Negligence in England and Germany: A Comparative Analysis. — Hart Publishing, 2008. — 182 p.

33. Viney G. Traite de droit civil [t. 2], Les obligations [v. 2.1], La responsabilite: conditions. — 1080 p.

34. Weinrib J. E. The Idea of Private Law. — Harvard University Press, 1995. — 237 p