Contractual negligence: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
Line 15: Line 15:


==={{tag|Wilful default}}===
==={{tag|Wilful default}}===
A heartily-bandied phrase(ref>see also “[[wilful misconduct]]”, a formulations which Americans seem to prefer, but which to [[Jolly Contrarian|these cloth ears]] carries even less legal meaning.</ref> 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 comprising a “[[breach of contract]]”.  
A heartily-bandied phrase<ref>see also “[[wilful misconduct]]”, a formulations which Americans seem to prefer, but which to [[Jolly Contrarian|these cloth ears]] carries even less legal meaning.</ref> 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 comprising a “[[breach of contract]]”.  


Now [[breach]]es of contract, under the law of contract, entitle a 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''.
Now [[breach]]es of contract, under the law of contract, entitle a 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''.