82,891
edits
Contractual negligence: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
What to make of this? | What to make of this? | ||
At a glance it seems reasonable: it is time-honoured boilerplate, thrown into contracts to close them out like chump change tossed into the bill platter at the end of an agreeable meal with passable company of whom one has now had enough. | At a glance it seems reasonable: it is time-honoured [[boilerplate]], thrown into contracts to close them out like chump change tossed into the bill platter at the end of an agreeable meal with passable company of whom one has now had enough. | ||
But does it make sense to fritter away a contractual claim this way? In [[Jolly Contrarian|your correspondent]]’s opinion, no, except in one special case: under an {{tag|indemnity}}. | But does it make sense to fritter away a contractual claim this way? In [[Jolly Contrarian|your correspondent]]’s opinion, no, except in one special case: under an {{tag|indemnity}}. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==={{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. | 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. Our 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''. | ||