Examines two problems in Private law which are posed by the 'Good Samaritan'. This work examines and compares the varied responses of the Roman, French, German, and English legal systems to these problems.

In principle, English law does not grant the necessitous intervener a claim against the beneficiary of his intervention. Kortamnn examines the theoretical justifications for assuming this position and again concludes that the law deserves reconsideration. Finally, Kortmann concludes by demonstrating close interconnections between the two, traditionally independent issues. He argues that the law ought not to introduce a general duty to intervene without at the same time granting the intervener a claim, at the very least for reimbursement of expenses and compensation of any loss suffered in the course of the intervention.

PART I: LIABILITY FOR NONFEASANCE
I. INTRODUCTION
II. WHAT IS 'NONFEASANCE'?
III. THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN
FEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE
IV. LIABILITY FOR NONFEASANCE IN CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN
PRIVATE LAW
V. LIABILITY FOR NONFEASANCE IN ENGLISH PRIVATE LAW
VI. TOWARDS A MORE CONSISTENT APPROACH
PART II: GRANTING A CLAIM TO THE INTERVENER
VII. THE DIFFERENT MEASURES OF RECOVERY AND
THEIR TERMINOLOGY
VIII. THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST GRANTING
A REMEDY TO THE INTERVENER
IX. THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF GRANTING
A REMEDY TO THE INTERVENER
X. THE CONTINENTAL DOCTRINE OF 'NEGOTIORUM GESTIO'
XI. THE POSITION IN ENGLISH LAW
XII. TOWARDS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE: USING THE
EXISTING DOCTRINES?
XIII. TOWARDS A NEW GENERAL PRINCIPLE
EPILOGUE