The distinction between third-party damage liquidation and contracts with protective effects for third parties is the subject of much controversy. Recently, there has been a certain preference for contractual third-party protection; conversely, the legitimacy of third-party damage liquidation is sometimes called into question. In contrast, the author aims to achieve two things with this work: on one hand, to demonstrate the need for third-party damage liquidation and its equivalence, and on the other hand, to delineate third-party damage liquidation and contractual third-party protection more clearly than has been achieved so far. The starting point for the proposed distinction is a correction of the terms used by the prevailing opinion. Following the terminological clarification, the discussion will address the criteria by which the likelihood of liability should be assessed.