No abstract

The aim of the paper is to describe the so-called protective purpose of the contract, by demonstrating the liability of experts for damage caused by an imperfect expert opinion, incorrect advice, or information. The comparative method will be used in conjunction with analyzing the Czech, Austrian, and German arrangements – their continuities and differences. Criteria for assessing whether this is a protective purpose of the contract and how these criteria vary in different legal frameworks are discussed in detail. The conceptual features of the expert as well as the assumptions of their responsibility for providing advice or information regulated in the individual jurisdictions are argued as well. The article concludes that the protective purpose of the contract is demonstrated accurately in the case of the liability of the expert for damage which has been established on the basis of a contract. These are in particular cases where an expert draws up an opinion on behalf of the parties on the basis of a contract which is, however, concluded with merely one party. In the event of a breach of the contract, the expert is also responsible for the damage caused to a party that has not concluded the contract with an expert.

In 2014, a fundamental reform of private law took place in the Czech Republic. It was a revolution in private law. The reform of Czech private law was also to some extent contributed to by the pressure of the neighbouring more advanced legal systems in which the Czech legislator sought inspiration, especially the ABGB and its basic principles. Czech private law has been influenced since at least 1811 by the ABGB; this regulation affected Czech private law even in the first half of the twentieth century. This paper aims to answer the question how the ius-naturale conception of ABGB affected the Czech Civil Code of 2012 (the reform of private law in 2012) in the field of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and to what extent and in which institutes this influence manifested itself. The area of compensation for non-pecuniary damage was deliberately chosen – this area is related to the protection of human personality. Personality rights then reflect the theory of natural law, which was suppressed in Czech private law during the second half of the twentieth century.