Comparative studies of available relief for defective aircraft and grounding losses under the legal regimes in China and the U.S.: product tort liability or contractual warranty liability?

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Asia Pacific Law Review Pub Date : 2022-10-27 DOI:10.1080/10192557.2022.2117489
S. Liu, Yun Zhao, Xinhui Wang
{"title":"Comparative studies of available relief for defective aircraft and grounding losses under the legal regimes in China and the U.S.: product tort liability or contractual warranty liability?","authors":"S. Liu, Yun Zhao, Xinhui Wang","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n Two crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2019 resulted in the total grounding of all 737 MAX aircraft worldwide. The issue of grounding losses and available relief has attracted widespread attention. From a legal perspective, such losses, which include aircraft devaluation, operating losses, and added costs, constitute pure economic loss. Both Chinese and U.S. law provide for remedies for defects in a sales contract’s subject matter. Under U.S. law, pure economic losses are claimable only by way of a contractual claim. In China, however, current tort law allows for relief for losses other than those arising from aircraft devaluation/losses. Under the Chinese Civil Code, any exemptions stipulated in an aircraft sales contract on grounding losses arising from an aircraft manufacturer’s intentional or grossly negligent acts are invalid. Given the differing regimes in China and the U.S., aviation product liability insurance is an alternative relief channel for grounding losses, for which airlines, under certain circumstances, can directly file a claim with insurance companies. Consequently, characterization of grounding losses as a product tort liability or a contractual warranty liability shall impact on the determination of court jurisdiction, disputing parties and applicable law in the litigation process.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"167 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117489","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Two crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2019 resulted in the total grounding of all 737 MAX aircraft worldwide. The issue of grounding losses and available relief has attracted widespread attention. From a legal perspective, such losses, which include aircraft devaluation, operating losses, and added costs, constitute pure economic loss. Both Chinese and U.S. law provide for remedies for defects in a sales contract’s subject matter. Under U.S. law, pure economic losses are claimable only by way of a contractual claim. In China, however, current tort law allows for relief for losses other than those arising from aircraft devaluation/losses. Under the Chinese Civil Code, any exemptions stipulated in an aircraft sales contract on grounding losses arising from an aircraft manufacturer’s intentional or grossly negligent acts are invalid. Given the differing regimes in China and the U.S., aviation product liability insurance is an alternative relief channel for grounding losses, for which airlines, under certain circumstances, can directly file a claim with insurance companies. Consequently, characterization of grounding losses as a product tort liability or a contractual warranty liability shall impact on the determination of court jurisdiction, disputing parties and applicable law in the litigation process.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中美两国法律制度下飞机缺陷和地面损失救济的比较研究:产品侵权责任还是合同保证责任?
2019年,两架波音737 MAX飞机坠毁,导致全球所有737 MAX飞机全部停飞。接地损失和可用的救济问题引起了广泛关注。从法律角度来看,这些损失包括飞机贬值、经营损失和额外成本,构成纯粹的经济损失。中国和美国的法律都对买卖合同标的物的瑕疵作出了救济规定。根据美国法律,纯经济损失只能通过合同索赔的方式提出索赔。然而,在中国,目前的侵权法允许对飞机贬值/损失以外的损失进行救济。根据《中国民法典》,飞机销售合同中规定的因飞机制造商故意或重大过失行为造成的接地损失的豁免无效。鉴于中美两国不同的制度,航空产品责任险是另一种补偿停飞损失的渠道,在某些情况下,航空公司可以直接向保险公司提出索赔。因此,将接地损失定性为产品侵权责任或合同保证责任将影响到诉讼过程中法院管辖权、争议方和适用法律的确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
Constitutional foundings in Northeast Asia Constitutional democracy in Indonesia Authoritarianism and legality Asia-Pacific trusts law Volume 1 theory and practice in context Varieties of authoritarian legality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1