The civil codes of Argentina and Perú are two of the few South American civil laws that, with different legal formulas, recognize on the creditor party a burden or duty of mitigate damages. On this basis, this paper aims to arrive, after a general approach to the duty or burden of mitigate damages in case of breach of contract, to a brief comparative analysis about the regulation that this figure has received in both civil codes, dealing with matters related not only to the structure and content of rules concerning this duty, but also to the juridical nature and foundations of the mitigation. All in order to stablish the existing similarities and differences between rules that incorporate the duty to mitigate damages in the civil codes of Argentina and Perú, the possibility of finding a common juridical foundation to both legislations, and the incidence of such a foundation in...

The remoteness rule constitutes a limit on quantum respondeatur that has not been well understood by national doctrine, which –from a unifying approach to different systems of civil liability– has come to question its usefulness and coherence with the full compensation principle. In this paper, this approach is debated and, based on a review of Comparative Law, a renewing conception of the rule is proposed that allows it to be understood as the distinctive element of liability for breach of contract and the fundamental criteria of objective attribution of damage in the Peruvian contract Law.

The remoteness rule constitutes a limit on quantum respondeatur that has not been well understood by national doctrine, which –from a unifying approach to different systems of civil liability– has come to question its usefulness and coherence with the full compensation principle. In this paper, this approach is debated and, based on a review of Comparative Law, a renewing conception of the rule is proposed that allows it to be understood as the distinctive element of liability for breach of contract and the fundamental criteria of objective attribution of damage in the Peruvian contract Law.

This paper addresses the problem of determining causation between a doctor’s breach of his duty to inform and injuries suffered by the patient as a consequence of the occurrence of uninformed risks. The paper criticizes the application of “hypothetical causality” as an explanatory figure for the causal link and also criticizes the idea of ‘hypothetical informed consent’ as a mechanism to exempt the liability of the defaulting doctor. Finally, the paper argues that the real problem in such case scenarios is not strictly a causation one, yet it has a normative and prudential nature. Accordingly, the solution does not require to establish a patient’s supposed a consent, but to correctly apply objective and subjective attribution criteria.

The civil codes of Argentina and Perú are two of the few South American civil laws that, with different legal formulas, recognize on the creditor party a burden or duty of mitigate damages. On this basis, this paper aims to arrive, after a general approach to the duty or burden of mitigate damages in case of breach of contract, to a brief comparative analysis about the regulation that this figure has received in both civil codes, dealing with matters related not only to the structure and content of rules concerning this duty, but also to the juridical nature and foundations of the mitigation. All in order to stablish the existing similarities and differences between rules that incorporate the duty to mitigate damages in the civil codes of Argentina and Perú, the possibility of finding a common juridical foundation to both legislations, and the incidence of such a foundation in...

This paper addresses the problem of determining causation between a doctor’s breach of his duty to inform and injuries suffered by the patient as a consequence of the occurrence of uninformed risks. The paper criticizes the application of “hypothetical causality” as an explanatory figure for the causal link and also criticizes the idea of ‘hypothetical informed consent’ as a mechanism to exempt the liability of the defaulting doctor. Finally, the paper argues that the real problem in such case scenarios is not strictly a causation one, yet it has a normative and prudential nature. Accordingly, the solution does not require to establish a patient’s supposed a consent, but to correctly apply objective and subjective attribution criteria.

The remoteness rule constitutes a limit on quantum respondeatur that has not been well understood by national doctrine, which –from a unifying approach to different systems of civil liability– has come to question its usefulness and coherence with the full compensation principle. In this paper, this approach is debated and, based on a review of Comparative Law, a renewing conception of the rule is proposed that allows it to be understood as the distinctive element of liability for breach of contract and the fundamental criteria of objective attribution of damage in the Peruvian contract Law.

This paper addresses the problem of determining causation between a doctor’s breach of his duty to inform and injuries suffered by the patient as a consequence of the occurrence of uninformed risks. The paper criticizes the application of “hypothetical causality” as an explanatory figure for the causal link and also criticizes the idea of ‘hypothetical informed consent’ as a mechanism to exempt the liability of the defaulting doctor. Finally, the paper argues that the real problem in such case scenarios is not strictly a causation one, yet it has a normative and prudential nature. Accordingly, the solution does not require to establish a patient’s supposed a consent, but to correctly apply objective and subjective attribution criteria.

The civil codes of Argentina and Perú are two of the few South American civil laws that, with different legal formulas, recognize on the creditor party a burden or duty of mitigate damages. On this basis, this paper aims to arrive, after a general approach to the duty or burden of mitigate damages in case of breach of contract, to a brief comparative analysis about the regulation that this figure has received in both civil codes, dealing with matters related not only to the structure and content of rules concerning this duty, but also to the juridical nature and foundations of the mitigation. All in order to stablish the existing similarities and differences between rules that incorporate the duty to mitigate damages in the civil codes of Argentina and Perú, the possibility of finding a common juridical foundation to both legislations, and the incidence of such a foundation in...