83,357
edits
Wilful default: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "See: *Contractual negligence *Gross negligence") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|negotiation|}}The one, bastard part of that sainted triplet [[negligence, fraud or wilful default]], “wilful default” without an obvious legal meaning. | |||
Whereas “negligence” and “fraud” are terms of forensic science — the former hailing from the common law of [[tort]], and being the failure to observe the standards of the [[Reasonable person|sort of fellow one might encounter]] on the [[Man on the Clapham Omnibus|Clapham omnibus]], and the latter hailing from criminal law<ref>Interestingly, the there is no [[tort|''tort'']] of fraud; it is called “[[deceit]]” and was ably summarised in {{casenote1|The Kriti Palm|2006|EWCACiv|1601}} as follows: “The elements of the tort of [[deceit]] are well known. In essence they require (1) a representation, which is (2) false, (3) dishonestly made, and (4) intended to be relied on and in fact relied on.”</ref> and involving a false representation, knowingly made, with the intent to profit from it — wilful default has no such lineage. “Default” suggests a contractual breach, but we feel there is a rather better word for that — “breach” — but the wilfulness, wantonness or licentiousness of one’s behaviour under a contract has never been of any great concern to those who sit on the Queen’s Bench Division: what matters is whether you have breached it. If you have, you are apt to be put in a stockage and pelted with cabbages, however obstreporous your frame of mind while you did, or didn’t. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Contractual negligence]] | *[[Contractual negligence]] | ||
*[[Gross negligence]] | *[[Gross negligence]] | ||
{{ref}} | |||