82,891
edits
Contractual negligence: Difference between revisions
→Normal Negligence
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
[[File:Contractual loss2.PNG|450px|thumb|right|Damage against Wantonness. Mapped. Seriousness pointed out.]] Consider the handsome table to the right. This charts all conceivable breaches of contract. The easiest cases are in the bottom right: not much loss, but the defaulting party has been gratuitous in its behavior and however paltry the claim, has no leg to stand on. | [[File:Contractual loss2.PNG|450px|thumb|right|Damage against Wantonness. Mapped. Seriousness pointed out.]] Consider the handsome table to the right. This charts all conceivable breaches of contract. The easiest cases are in the bottom right: not much loss, but the defaulting party has been gratuitous in its behavior and however paltry the claim, has no leg to stand on. | ||
The hard cases are in the top left: here there has been little culpable misbehaviour as such (but note our condition to entry: | The hard cases are in the top left: here there has been little culpable misbehaviour as such (but note our condition to entry: the contract ''has'' been breached), but a significant loss has 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 [[mediocre lawyer|counsel]]. It is not that you wish to | 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 exclude contractual liability if a party hasn’t 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'', or perhaps should be excused should a [[force majeure]] come about. 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?==== | ||