5780447535

50 Tomas: Pajor

subjcct to criminal sanction. cvcn if committed unintcntiunally.¹¹ In ihcsc cifcumstanocs it can bc concludcd that Donna violated thc profcssiotul duły binding upon hcr under statutc and independent from any contractual relation.*⁹ It suffices to assumc that thc pfofessional negligcncc of Donna was also dircctcd against thc potcntial acquircr of thc Company, espccially taking into accouflt thc foreseeablc (and in ccrtain instanccs - statutorily cotnpulsory) pubhcation of thc opinion. Thus thc delictual daim of Paul would bc wcll founded. It is indispcmablc though that hc prove thc cxistcnce of a normal causal link bctwccn thc damage iocurrcd by him and thc Professional ncgligcnce of Donna. '1‘his may not bc casy sińce an acquira of a company is often dhvcn by diflcrcnt motivations and it may turn out that hc would havc taken a givcn dedsion regardlcss of thc conlcnt of thc auditor’s opinion.

In any case the court should takc into considcration that Paul substan-tially contributcd towards thc damage if hc took an important economic dccision basing it exclusively on the Donna'* op:nion, without cxploring thc financial condttion of thc Company according to other accessible sourccs tf Information. Pursuant to Art. 362 Civ.C. thc obligation to redress thc damage should bc rcduccd adcquatcly to circumstanccs, in particular - to the levd of fault of both partics.

Case 7

Dieter, the o*ncr of a smali business, kas a long-standmg agrcement wM First Sational Bank. One day. Credit Inc.₀ a credit rating institute. receira an anonymous phone cali that Diet er's business is about to go Bankrupt, Credit. Inc makes no further inąułry and thus does not learn that the allegaiia is totally unfounded. Instead. Credit Inc. caUs First Sational Bank and reports the information. First Sational Bank immediately cancels all of Dieter's łomy As a rcsult, Dieter suffers economic damages. Ile now sues Credit Inc. SC recorer his loss.

I. Dieter’* claim against Credit Inc. for rccovering an economic damage should bc admitted on thc grounds of Art. 430 Civ.C. (Art. 120 L.C.\ A contractual claim against the Bank might also possibly bc wcll founded

^u Set Art. 78 of tht Law of 2/ Scptetnher IW on actnuntoncy (unifitd inl »: OJ

2002, No. 76. it«n 694).

'•Set: B. Lcwatzkiewicz-Pcirykowika, "New# tmdeocK w zakresie cywriH odpowiedzialn o4a zawodowej” (New curreau m ihc field of tht <avil lubdity of pfofcwotuM (m ] Rozprawy z polskiego i europejskiego prawa prywatnego. Kufga p&nx}tko*a ofiaro*** Profesorowi Józefowi Skąpskiemy [T.oiyt oo Polub and Huropeaa pebate Uw ofTeicd ta Profettor J. SMptkii Kraków 1994. pp 186. lit-189.

II. Credit Inc. institutc, as a professional economic operator, should not bavc relied soldy on an anonymous telcphonc cali. It should havc inquired wbelher thc Information on thc iinmcdiate bankruptcy of thc enterprisc operalcd by Dieter was truć, bdorc it forwardcd it to the Bank. Undoub-tedly thc institute's staff committed negligence, perhaps cvcn gross negligcncc, aad in tmnsmitting falsc infonnation about Dieter they infringed upon his good repulation, being a personal interest protcctcd erga omnes (sec Art. 23 24 Civ.C.).

Ihcre esists a causal link bctwccn thc Dietcr's damage and thc gross negligcncc of thc Credit Inc. staff, sińce thc reaction of a Bank to infonnation about a dicnt's immediate bankruptcy rcmains within the limits of normal consequcnccs (Art. 361 § I Civ.C.). Thus, thc premises arc found. in accordanec with Art. 430 Civ.C. (Art. 120 of the L.C.), for thc Institute's liability for thc damage inflictcd by tbc fault of its aibordinatcs (anployees).

Notwithstanding that. thc liability of the Bank to Dieter as a party to thc loan contract could also bc coosidcrcd. Indeed tbc Bank had probably no rcasoo not to bclicvc in infonnation forwardcd by a professional insUtutc (only U' thc former was unawarc of the way in which it was learncd). It did not havc to undertake inquiry on its own. Howcver, it seans that before the canccllalion of loans it was obligated to refer to tbe dient and cnable hm: to providc an cxp!anation. If it did not do so, it would bc liable for non-observancc of thc duty of co-operation in contractual relation. on thc grounds of Art. 471 in conjunction with Art. 354 § 2 Civ.C. Both tbc ittititutc and thc Bank would bc liable in solidum for Dictcr’s damage.

Case 8

Sleholas war driving an Alfa Romeo GT automobile rented to kim by RAC when hc was involved in a head-on coUision with another automobile. The enginr of the rented vehicle intruded into the passenger compartment causing snere and permanent injuries. Following the coUision. RAC took possession of the wrecked automobile and informed Nicholas that the car would be held jor tixty days awailing his Inspeetion. Prior to that time. however, a RAC mployee serered the front of the car and remoted the engine. The severing of the car madę it impossłble to determine within a reasonahle degree of certainty whether or not the rehlcle had design, manufacturing and jor maintenancc defects which proxlmately caused Nicholas' injuries.

I. Nicholas has a claim in tort against RAC for redress of thc damage resulting from thc fault of thc defendant (Art. 415 or 416 Civ.C.).