Punitive and reconstructive function civil liability: the view of scientists theory of state and law

The article is made by specialists in the field of state theory and it substantiates the existence of civil liability punitive function, not only reducing. The authors, based on the analysis of legislation and Provisions in general legal theory of liability show different manifestations of the punitive function of civil responsibility in its implementation. Restorer-valued function is considered a broad and general social position is not limited to the scope of the restoration of the estate of the victim. Justifying that it is manifested in the restoration of social relations, social justice and the rule of law.

Keywords

legal liability; civil liability; recovery function; punitive function; a penalty payment of compensation

Received

26.10.2018

Publication date

31.10.2018

Cite Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

GOST	Komarov S., Lipinsky D. Punitive and reconstructive function civil liability: the view of scientists theory of state and law // Gosudarstvo i pravo – 2018. – Issue 9 C. 129-132 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/gp/s207987840000761-6-1-en (circulation date: 25.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S013207690001523-7
MLA	Komarov, S., Lipinsky, Dmitry A "Punitive and reconstructive function civil liability: the view of scientists theory of state and law." Gosudarstvo i pravo 9 (2018):129-132. DOI: 10.31857/S013207690001523-7
APA	Komarov S., Lipinsky D. (2018). Punitive and reconstructive function civil liability: the view of scientists theory of state and law. Gosudarstvo i pravo (9), pp.129-132 DOI: 10.31857/S013207690001523-7

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1870

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Konstantinov V.S., Maksimenko S.T. Pravovye voprosy material'nogo stimulirovaniya deyatel'nosti predpriyatij. Saratov, 1981.

2. Mamutov V.K., Ovsienko V.V., Yudin V.Ya. Predpriyatie i material'naya otvetstvennost'. Kiev, 1971.

3. Slesarev V.L. Ob'ekt i rezul'tat grazhdanskogo pravonarusheniya. Tomsk, 1980.

4. Varkallo V. Ob otvetstvennosti po grazhdanskomu pravu. M., 1978.

5. Varul P.A. Metodologicheskie problemy issledovaniya grazhdansko-pravovoj otvetstvennosti. Tallin, 1989.

6. Petrov I.N. Kharakternye cherty grazhdanskopravovoj otvetstvennosti // Uch. zap. VNIISZ. Vyp. 20. M., 1970.

7. Braginskij M.I., Ivanov V.I. O funktsiyakh neustojki v khozyajstvennykh otnosheniyakh // Problemy sovershenstvovaniya sovetskogo zakonodatel'stva: Trudy VNIISZ. Vyp. 10. M., 1977.

8. Khokhlov V.A. Otvetstvennost' za pol'zovanie chuzhimi denezhnymi sredstvami // Khozyajstvo i pravo. 1996. № 8.

9. Efremov A.F. Printsipy zakonnosti i problemy ikh realizatsii. Samara, 2000.

10. Aristov S.V. Zakonnaya i dogovornaya otvetstvennost'. Usloviya ob umen'shenii i osvobozhdenii ot otvetstvennosti // Yurist. 1997. № 11.

11. Khokhlov V. A. Otvetstvennost' za narushenie dogovora po grazhdanskomu pravu. Tol'yatti, 1997.

12. Alekseev S.S. Obschaya teoriya sotsialisticheskogo prava. Vyp. 2. Sverdlovsk, 1964.

13. Ruslin A.D. K voprosu o pozitivnoj otvetstvennosti sub'ektov grazhdansko-pravovykh otnoshenij // Vestnik VUiT. Vyp. 4. Tol'yatti, 1999.