Abstract

The article analyzes the concept of indirect damage which - aimed at limiting the scope of compensation - gives rise to discrepancies in both judicature and doctrine. the two-part publication covers: 1) systematization and analysis of the criteria for the distinction of indirect damage proposed in literature; 2) analysis of normative bases for the distinction of indirect damage. The reasoning leads to a conclusion that limiting the scope of compensation by means of the concept of indirect damage lacks legal grounds and is unjustified. The proper mechanism of limiting compensation should be based on a correct understanding of adequate causality.