82,891
edits
Contractual negligence: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
The hard cases are in the top left: here there has been little culpable misbehaviour as such (but note our condition to entry: the terms of the contract have been transgressed), but a significant loss as come about nonetheless. | The hard cases are in the top left: here there has been little culpable misbehaviour as such (but note our condition to entry: the terms of the contract have been transgressed), but a significant loss as come about nonetheless. | ||
Are these the examples an exclusion from liability for negligence is meant to cover? Surely not: a contractual obligation is a contractual obligation. Doing things this way betrays laziness or a lack of legal acuity from your counsel. It is not that you wish to apply an exclusion from contractual liability if a party | Are these the examples an exclusion from liability for negligence is meant to cover? Surely not: a contractual obligation is a contractual obligation. Doing things this way betrays laziness or a lack of legal acuity from your [[mediocre lawyer|counsel]]. It is not that you wish to apply an exclusion from contractual liability if a party has’nt been negligent - what you mean to say is that your counterparty ''is only obliged in the first place to exercise a certain standard of care''. If you craft the contract that way, there’s no need to carve out liability for non-negligent behaviour, because that behaviour wouldn’t breach the contract in the first place. | ||
====But isn't this an easier catch-all?==== | ====But isn't this an easier catch-all?==== | ||