Hold harmless: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|glossary|}}{{holdharmlesscapsule}}
{{essay|contract|hold harmless|}}
 
A [[hold harmless]] is thus a slightly odd undertaking, because as a general proposition, a contracting party would not be liable for losses the other suffers unless they are caused by its [[breach of contract]] — that is, a [[hold harmless]] isolates a party from a liability it shouldn't have under a [[contract]] in the first place. It may operate to shut down an argument based on an [[implied term]], or prevent a claim in [[tort]] arising from faithful performance of the contract that somehow breaches a non-contractual [[duty of care]] to the other party (don’t get me started on [[concurrent liability]]).
 
{{box|The paradigm case is the parking building that asks its customers to hold it harmless for damage or theft to their vehicles while parked in the parking building.}}
 
===Not to be confused with an [[indemnity]]===
A hold harmless is subtly different from an [[indemnity]] - it’s more like a beneficent inversion of one. {{indemnitycapsule}}
 
{{c2|contract|damages}}

Latest revision as of 10:43, 2 September 2024

The basic principles of contract
Formation: capacity and authority · representation · misrepresentation · offer · acceptance · consideration · intention to create legal relations · agreement to agree · privity of contract oral vs written contract · principal · agent

Interpretation and change: governing law · mistake · implied term · amendment · assignment · novation
Performance: force majeure · promise · waiver · warranty · covenant · sovereign immunity · illegality · severability · good faith · commercially reasonable manner · commercial imperative · indemnity · guarantee
Breach: breach · repudiation · causation · remoteness of damage · direct loss · consequential loss · foreseeability · damages · contractual negligence · process agent
Remedies: damages · adequacy of damages ·equitable remedies · injunction · specific performance · limited recourse · rescission · estoppel · concurrent liability
Not contracts: Restitutionquasi-contractquasi-agency

Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

“What? Harmless! Is that all it’s got to say? Harmless! One word!”
Ford shrugged. “Well, there are a hundred billion stars in the Galaxy, and only a limited amount of space in the book’s microprocessors,” he said, “and no one knew much about the Earth, of course.”
“Well, for God’s sake, I hope you managed to rectify that a bit.”
“Oh yes, well I managed to transmit a new entry off to the editor. He had to trim it a bit, but it’s still an improvement.”
“And what does it say now?” asked Arthur.
“Mostly harmless,” admitted Ford with a slightly embarrassed cough.

Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Hold harmless
/həʊld/ /ˈhɑːmlɪs/ (n.)
pl: holds harmless

Under a hold harmless, one party agrees not to sue the other for losses it incurs in performing the contract.

It is thus a slightly odd undertaking, because as a general proposition, a contracting party would not be liable for losses the other suffers unless they are caused by its breach of contract — that is, a hold harmless isolates a party from a liability it shouldn’t have under a contract in the first place. It may operate to shut down an argument based on an implied term, or prevent a claim in tort arising from faithful performance of the contract that somehow breaches a non-contractual duty of care to the other party (don’t get me started on concurrent liability).

The paradigm case is the parking building that asks its customers to hold it harmless for damage or theft to their vehicles while parked in the parking building.

When it comes to claims shipped in from third parties that come from faithful performance of a contract with a second party, a hold harmless may — or may not — be subtly different from an indemnity - it’s more like a beneficent inversion of one. Some American juridical minorities have advanced the view that a hold harmless protects against potential losses as well as actual losses, where an indemnity protects against actual losses only.

The JC’s hypothesis — totally unsupported by authority, anything he could find in a textbook or on Google so, yes, he just made up out of whole cloth so use at your peril, but here goes — is that to hold harmless is to defend against behaviour; to take bodily action — while to indemnify is no more than to pay once a cost has actually been incurred. So you might hold someone harmless against suits, claims, actions, proceedings, meaning you must don your armour and get out there and fight the good curial fight, avoiding liability of you can — where an indemnity is no more than an obligation to pony up the readies once the action has been finally lost.

Towards more picturesque speech

Though it sounds like a verb, “hold harmless” often functions as a noun. Its plural form is “holds harmless”. Like “attorneys general”. Because “hold harmlesses” sounds stupid, and “harmless” is an adjective.

And yes, I did just make that up.

Premium content
Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics👇

See also

References