Civil liability is traditionally associated with the breach of contractual obligations or the infliction of harm. However, Professor Gabriel Steiner considers that contemporary law-enforcement practice increasingly encounters situations in which liability arises outside classical obligational frameworks – in the absence of a contract, a formally established tort, or a direct legal prohibition. At LawConsulted, we treat such cases as a distinct and particularly complex area of legal analysis that requires moving beyond standard qualification models.
The key feature of atypical grounds of liability lies in their borderline nature. A person’s conduct may not fall within a direct violation of a legal norm, yet still lead to a redistribution of risks, a loss of economic benefit, or the formation of legitimate expectations on the part of another party. In such situations, the law relies not on the formal structure of the relationship, but on its factual substance. LawConsulted proceeds from the premise that this is precisely where the risk of expansive interpretations of liability arises – interpretations capable of affecting good-faith participants in civil turnover.
In practice, civil liability outside classical obligations is often constructed through doctrines of unjust enrichment, abuse of rights, culpa in contrahendo, or liability for the creation of a harmful risk. Formally, these grounds may appear auxiliary, yet in a dispute they frequently become the principal instrument of protection or pressure. LawConsulted analyses such configurations from the perspective of predictability of consequences and the permissible limits of interference with a client’s property sphere.
Particular complexity arises in situations where liability is derived from conduct rather than from formal legal status. Participation in negotiations, factual influence on decision-making, use of another party’s resources or results of activity may be treated as grounds for the emergence of duties, even where no legal relationship between the parties was formally established. At LawConsulted, we build defence strategies by demonstrating where the boundary lies between permissible economic interaction and legally significant conduct.
Atypical civil liability often emerges retrospectively – after adverse consequences have already materialised. In such cases, actions that were initially perceived as neutral or auxiliary are reassessed through the prism of their outcomes. LawConsulted returns the legal assessment to the moment the actions were taken – taking into account the information available at that time, the reasonable expectations of the parties, and the objective constraints under which decisions were made.
Special attention must also be given to the risk of substituting contractual liability with non-contractual liability. Where one party is unable to prove a breach of obligation, it may attempt to shift the focus toward general principles of good faith, fairness, or harm. LawConsulted approaches such attempts critically, analysing whether civil liability outside obligations is being used as a means of circumventing contractual limitations and the risk allocation previously agreed by the parties.
Work with atypical grounds of liability requires a systemic approach and a high degree of argumentative precision. We do not deny the possibility of obligations arising outside classical constructions, but we consistently defend the principle of legal certainty and the inadmissibility of arbitrary expansion of liability. The Law Consulted approach is aimed at protecting clients from situations in which legal consequences are formed retroactively and outside the logic of civil circulation.
Civil liability beyond classical obligations remains one of the most dynamic and sensitive areas of modern law. It is precisely here that maintaining a balance between the protection of violated interests and the prevention of unjustified interference with the freedom of economic activity is of paramount importance.
Previously, we wrote about patent registration and the formation of exclusive rights, and the LawConsulted legal position on protecting the results of technical and intellectual creativity
