Exemplary damages: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|contract|}}In which a court becomes unusually censorious, and departs from its usual role in compensating victims of civil wrongdoing, and punishes a wrongdoer, for its naughtiness, regardless of the loss it has caused. Not to be confused with [[aggravated damages]] or [[consequential loss]].
{{a|contract|}}In which a court becomes unusually censorious, and departs from its usual role of merely ''compensating'' victims of civil wrongdoing, and proactively ''punishes'' a wrongdoer for its naughtiness, independently of any compensatable loss it has caused. Not to be confused with [[aggravated damages]] or [[consequential loss]].


{{Punitive damages capsule}}
{{Punitive damages capsule}}

Revision as of 12:14, 22 October 2020

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.

In which a court becomes unusually censorious, and departs from its usual role of merely compensating victims of civil wrongdoing, and proactively punishes a wrongdoer for its naughtiness, independently of any compensatable loss it has caused. Not to be confused with aggravated damages or consequential loss.

Exemplary”, or “punitive” damagespunishing a defendant for the contumelious or high-handed way it wronged a plaintiff — isn’t “contumelious” a great word? — goes beyond the philosophical aims of a contractual remedy — to give a fellow what he bargained for — and so are not available as damages for breach of contract. As Lord Atkinson put it, in the great case of Addis v Gramophone:

“In many other cases of breach of contract there may be circumstances of malice, fraud, defamation, or violence, which would sustain an action of tort as an alternative remedy to an action for breach of contract. If one should select the former mode of redress, he may, no doubt, recover exemplary damages, or what is sometimes styled vindictive damages; but if he should choose to seek redress in the form of an action for breach of contract, he lets in all the consequences of that form of action: Thorpe v Thorpe (1832) 3B.&Ad. 580. One of these consequences is, I think, this: that he is to be paid adequate compensation in money for the loss of that which he would have received had his contract been kept, and no more.”

Vindictive damages”. I mean did you ever hear such a super phrase? How did it not catch on?

The Law Commission, considering the topic some ninety-odd years later, felt the same way: “we recommend that punitive damages should not be available unless the defendant has committed a tort, an equitable wrong, or a civil wrong that arises under a statute, and his conduct showed a ‘deliberate and outrageous disregard of the plaintiff’s rights’. We also recommend that punitive damages should never be available for breach of contract.[1]

See also

References