5 Negotiorum gestio as a defence within the framework of the law of tort.Justified benevolent intervention in advancement of another’s interests constitutes a ground of defence in respect of an extra-contractual liability in damages which would oth

来源：学生作业帮助网编辑：作业帮时间：2024/05/02 17:11:12

5 Negotiorum gestio as a defence within the framework of the law of tort.Justified benevolent intervention in advancement of another’s interests constitutes a ground of defence in respect of an extra-contractual liability in damages which would oth
5 Negotiorum gestio as a defence within the framework of the law of tort.Justified benevolent intervention in advancement of another’s interests constitutes a ground of defence in respect of an extra-contractual liability in damages which would otherwise be imposed.That is expressly set out in PEL Liab．Dam．Article 5：202(2)． ’
Illustration 3
As a result of a traffic accident P is rendered unconscious and locked in in his car． G smashes a car window in order to be able to unlock the door from the inside and pull P out of the car．G is not liable to P under the law of tort for che damage
caused to the car．
6 Burden of proof These Principles regard rules on burden of proof as belonging to substantive law．Rules on burden of proof are applicable when it is not possible to clearly establish the circumstances of the case．Within the law of negotiorum gestio the general principle applies whereby each party must make out the circumstances favourable to its case and in case of dispute prove them．When a given party is not able to do that,the decision in the case must be adverse to them．
Illustration 4
The facts are the same as in illustration 3,save that in smashing in the window G is injured.Both parties claim compensation—P in tort 1aw on account of property damage and G in negotiorum gestio under Article 3：103 on account of the personal injury suffered in acting as intervener．If it is disputed and cannot be established whether G really acted for the purpose of rescuing P,then P’s claim to compensation will succeed,while G’s claim will fail．
7.Proof By contrast,all questions which are related to the problem whether a given fact is to be regarded as proven are part of the law of procedure．They are therefore not
the subject matter of these Principles．
Illustration 5
The facts are again the same as in illustration 3．However,P later maintains that G smashed the window only for opportunistic reasons．Meaning to steal the camera lying on the passenger seat of P’s car．procedural law determines under what conditions and to what extent G’s case is supported by presumptions triggered by a prima facie case． The same goes for the question as to what concrete circumstances place upon P an onus of introducing evidence to rebut a prima facie case．
请不要发在线翻译的东西，那个我也会。

全部展开

5 Negotiorum作为一个范围内的侵权行为法的框架内国防无因管理。有理由对他人的进步仁慈干预的利益构成了一个额外的损害赔偿，合同责任，否则便imposed.That方面的答辩理由是明文载于PEL的Liab.Dam.Article 5:202（2）。'
插图3
作为一个交通意外P结果呈现昏迷，被锁在他的汽车。G在打碎了车窗，以便能够从内部开启的门，拉P出car.G不承担责任为P下对车的损害侵权法
汽车造成的。
6举证责任，这些原则视为属于关于举证责任的实质性law.Rules关于举证责任的规则是否适用时，是不可能明确确立case.Within的无因管理法律适用的一般原则的情况下，即每一方都必须作出有利的情况下进行的个案，并在发生争端时them.When某一缔约方证明是无法做到这一点，必须在案件的裁决对他们不利。
插图4
事实是在同样的插图3，保存在窗口中，在粉碎G是injured.Both当事人要求赔偿侵权1aw - P的3:103条规定的财产损失和无因管理Ğ帐户的个人帐户在受到伤害作为intervener.If它是有争议的，不能确定其是否Ğ真正为挽救P，那么P的索赔的赔偿将成功的目的行事，而G的要求将会失败。
7.Proof相反，所有相关的问题是否得到承认的事实是，作为证明是对procedure.They法律的一部分的问题，因此并不
这些原则的主题。
插图5
事实再次说明，作为在3.However，磷粉碎后认为，Ğ只机会主义reasons.Meaning窗口窃取相机对P的car.procedural法律乘客座位躺在同一决定，以及在什么条件下到什么程度G的情况下是支持由一个表面证据确凿的案件引发的假设。也是一样的问题，以什么具体情况下进行的介绍后，P 1的表面证据，以反驳证据确凿的案件的举证责任。

收起

全部展开

5 Negotiorum作为一个范围内的侵权行为法的框架内国防无因管理。有理由对他人的进步仁慈干预利益构成的一个额外的损害赔偿，合同责任，否则便imposed.That方面的答辩理由是明文载于PEL的Liab.Dam.Article 5:202（2）。'
插图3
作为一个交通意外P结果呈现昏迷，被锁在他的汽车。G在打碎了车窗，以便能够从内部开启的门，拉P出car.G不承担责任为P下对车的损害侵权法
汽车造成的。
6举证责任，这些原则视为属于关于举证责任的实质性law.Rules关于举证责任的规则是否适用时，是不可能明确确立case.Within的无因管理法律适用的一般原则的情况下，即每一方都必须作出有利的情况下进行的个案，并在发生争端时them.When某一缔约方证明是无法做到这一点，必须在案件的裁决对他们不利。
插图4
事实是在插图3相同，粉碎保存在窗口G是人受伤。
双方主张在侵权1aw补偿磷的财产损失和无因管理Ğ帐户3:103条对在担任intervener.If它遭受的人身伤害帐户是有争议的，不能确定其是否真正为办事Ğ目的抢救P，那么P的索赔的赔偿会成功，而G的索赔将失败。
7.Proof相反，所有相关的问题是否得到承认的事实是，作为证明是对procedure.They法律的一部分的问题，因此并不
这些原则的主题。
插图5
事实再次说明，作为在3.However相同，
P后认为，只有打破Ğ机会主义reasons.Meaning窗口偷相机对P的car.procedural法律躺在乘客座位，以及在什么条件下确定在何种程度上G公司的案件是由一个表面证据确凿的案件引发的推定支持。也是一样的问题，以什么具体情况下进行的介绍后，P 1的表面证据，以反驳证据确凿的案件的举证责任。
我第一个回答的！

收起