ABSTRACT
The creation of the legal principle of "adequacy" has been a result of an effort to state the principle-component of the equilibrium in a binding manner and more precisely. The legal validity of this principle is an additional authority reason, of a specific character, comparable to the "heteronomous" moral reasons. It introduces a component of certainty to the fluid set of premises of moral reasoning. An increased preciseness results from the fact that one replaces the vague principle of non-liability for "too remote" damage with a more precise principle of non-liability for "non-adequate" damage, provided, of course, that the "adequacy" can be defined in a more precise manner. Legal interpretation of the principle of adequacy involves thus the question of finding and justifying a precise definition of, or a precise substitute for, the concept of "adequate causation".
