Special damages: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|contract|}}{{Special damages capsule}} | {{a|contract|}}{{Special damages capsule}} | ||
We have seen this magnificent formulation in, of course, a non-disclosure agreement: | |||
{{quote|No proof of [[special damages]] shall be necessary for the enforcement by either Party of the rights under this Agreement}} | |||
This is quite the piece of stating the obvious: proof of special damages is never required to enforce a contract (and generally special damages are not even available for breach of contract). | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Consequential loss]] | *[[Consequential loss]] | ||
*[[Damages]] | *[[Damages]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Revision as of 16:35, 20 May 2024
Special damages are damages the court awards you for the consequential or indirect losses it suffers upon a breach of contract. Compare with general damages which are the damages a court awards as a result of direct losses arising upon a breach of contract.
Remember, folks: “damages” are payment orders made by a court. You don’t suffer damages. You get paid damages if you suffer a loss. Well, an actionable one, any way.
Legal eagles are apt to confuse “losses” and “damages”, probably because “damage” is, in muggle-speak, a synonym for “loss”. In any case: consequential loss, indirect loss, special damages, consequential damages, indirect damages, special loss: all the same thing. We have seen this magnificent formulation in, of course, a non-disclosure agreement:
No proof of special damages shall be necessary for the enforcement by either Party of the rights under this Agreement
This is quite the piece of stating the obvious: proof of special damages is never required to enforce a contract (and generally special damages are not even available for breach of contract).