82,927
edits
Contractual negligence: Difference between revisions
→{{tag|Wilful default}}
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==={{tag|Wilful default}}=== | ==={{tag|Wilful default}}=== | ||
A heartily-bandied phrase which sounds like it ought to mean something. This fellow's best guess is something like a "deliberate refusal to perform one's obligations under a contract": not too far removed from fraud (it raises a presumption of fraudulence on the part of the actor in agreeing to the obligation in the first place) but in any weather a ''subset'' of the class of events "breaches of contract" | A heartily-bandied phrase which sounds like it ought to mean something. This fellow's best guess is something like a "deliberate refusal to perform one's obligations under a contract": not ''too'' far removed from [[fraud]] (it raises a presumption of fraudulence on the part of the actor in agreeing to the obligation in the first place) but, in any weather, a ''subset'' of the class of events "breaches of contract". | ||
For here's the point, lazengem: The point of a contractual ''obligation'' is to have some means of | Now [[breach]]es of contract, under the law of contract, entitle an innocent, wronged fellow to redress. That's what it means to be a breach. So it ought not cause your heart to leap to have your counterparty offering to be responsible for ''wanton'' examples of this behaviour. It is hardly a mark of generosity. Indeed; you might wonder why he seeks to exclude ''less'' wilful "[[default]]s" - or even ''unwilled'' defaults - being, as they are, ''defaults''. | ||
For here's the point, lazengem: The point of a contractual ''obligation'' is to have some means of making the person who owes it ''do'' it - or, failing that - compensating you for ''not'' doing it. Why else have an obligation? | |||
So is that what negligence is meant to do? | So is that what negligence is meant to do? | ||