Wilful default: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
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]]” without an obvious legal ''meaning''. | {{a|negotiation|}}The one, bastard part of that sainted triplet “[[negligence, fraud or wilful default]]” without an obvious legal ''meaning''. Some, including Americans call it [[wilful misconduct]], which is even ''more'' baffling.<ref>Though not without legal [[precedent]]: see [[wilful misconduct]] for more discussion.</ref> | ||
Whereas “[[negligence]]” and “[[fraud]]” are terms of forensic science — the former hailing from the common law of [[tort]], 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]]; 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. | Whereas “[[negligence]]” and “[[fraud]]” are terms of forensic ''science'' — the former hailing from the common law of [[tort]], 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]]; 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, and is wanting even as a work of legal ''art''. | ||
The “default” part suggests a ''contractual'' breach, but we feel there | The “default” part suggests a ''contractual'' breach, but we feel there are better words for that kind of thing — “breach”, for example — but in any case the wilfulness, wantonness or licentiousness of those who misperform their contracts has never been of much interest to those who sit on the [[Queen’s Bench Division]]: what matters is ''that'' there is a breach. If there is, the responsible fellow is for it, however obstreperous her frame of mind was you did, or didn’t, do what you shouldn’t, or should, have done. The release from exactly that anxiety is the very beauty of contractual relations: one need not care a jot about your counterparty’s intentions; what matters is her actions. That she does what she must do through gritted teeth or with the heaviest of hearts need not bother you. | ||
So changing outcomes depending on the mental state of your counterparty seems a rum affair. There is limited call for the sainted triplet in any contract in the first place — the very reason you enter a contract is to slip these sanctimonious strictures of the general civil law — but where you are raining in an indemnity where, by definition, there hasn’t been a breach of contract (''right''?) there is at least a good reason to impose a different standard. | So changing outcomes depending on the mental state of your counterparty seems a rum affair. There is limited call for the sainted triplet in any contract in the first place — the very reason you enter a contract is to slip these sanctimonious strictures of the general civil law — but where you are raining in an indemnity where, by definition, there hasn’t been a breach of contract (''right''?) there is at least a good reason to impose a different standard. | ||
Revision as of 09:25, 1 July 2021
|
Negotiation Anatomy™
|
The one, bastard part of that sainted triplet “negligence, fraud or wilful default” without an obvious legal meaning. Some, including Americans call it wilful misconduct, which is even more baffling.[1]
Whereas “negligence” and “fraud” are terms of forensic science — the former hailing from the common law of tort, being the failure to observe the standards of the sort of fellow one might encounter on the Clapham omnibus; the latter hailing from criminal law[2] and involving a false representation, knowingly made, with the intent to profit from it — “wilful default” has no such lineage, and is wanting even as a work of legal art.
The “default” part suggests a contractual breach, but we feel there are better words for that kind of thing — “breach”, for example — but in any case the wilfulness, wantonness or licentiousness of those who misperform their contracts has never been of much interest to those who sit on the Queen’s Bench Division: what matters is that there is a breach. If there is, the responsible fellow is for it, however obstreperous her frame of mind was you did, or didn’t, do what you shouldn’t, or should, have done. The release from exactly that anxiety is the very beauty of contractual relations: one need not care a jot about your counterparty’s intentions; what matters is her actions. That she does what she must do through gritted teeth or with the heaviest of hearts need not bother you.
So changing outcomes depending on the mental state of your counterparty seems a rum affair. There is limited call for the sainted triplet in any contract in the first place — the very reason you enter a contract is to slip these sanctimonious strictures of the general civil law — but where you are raining in an indemnity where, by definition, there hasn’t been a breach of contract (right?) there is at least a good reason to impose a different standard.
See also
References
- ↑ Though not without legal precedent: see wilful misconduct for more discussion.
- ↑ Interestingly, the there is no tort of fraud; it is called “deceit” and was ably summarised in The Kriti Palm 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.”