83,357
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
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. | 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. | 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. | ||