83,057
edits
Fraud: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "See: *Contractual negligence *Gross negligence") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|glossary|}}As a strictly ''legal'' matter, being a commercial fellow, the [[JC]] is only really interested in [[fraud]] as a part of the [[civil law]]. Not criminal fraud. Should fraud aggravate the damages available as a result of a [[breach of contract]]? No. And this isn’t just my view. According to arguments aired in {{casenote|Hadley|Baxendale}}: | |||
:''It is difficult, however, to see what the ground of such principle is, and how the ingredient of fraud can affect the question. For instance, if the defendants had maliciously and fraudulently kept the shaft, it is not easy to see why they should have been liable for these damages, if they are not to be held so where the delay is occasioned by their negligence only.'' | |||
===Roll of honour=== | |||
But as a commercial matter, being a commercial fellow, the JC is very interested iun how fraud happens, and how apparently gormless we are in preventing it happening right under our noses. | |||
For this there is the JC’s roll of honour. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[The dog in the night-time]] | |||
*[[Contractual negligence]] | *[[Contractual negligence]] | ||
*[[Gross negligence]] | *[[Gross negligence]] | ||
<small> | |||
{{roll of honour}} | |||
</small> | |||