Remedies - NDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{confianat|Remedies}} {{confi injunctions}}" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{confianat|Remedies}} | {{confianat|Remedies}} | ||
{{confi injunctions}} | {{confi injunctions}} | ||
{{ref}} |
Revision as of 15:28, 13 May 2019
NDA Anatomy™
|
The argument runs that it might be hard to prove that you’ve lost any money as a result of a confidentiality breach, so you want to be sure that equitable remedies like injunctions ordering the other guy to keep his mouth shut – those, under English law, that do not technically arise under the law of contract – are available to you.
In theory, this makes sense: one enters a confidentiality agreement to buy another man’s silence, whether or not there are gains or losses to be had from his doing so — but in practice, it is largely nonsense — who ever sought an injunction on a confi? The better question to ask, we think, is why contractual damages are often an “inadequate” remedy. Why? Because it is quite hard to prove loss through simple disclosure of confidential information. And why is it hard to prove that loss? Because, often, there won’t have been any.