Contractual negligence: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
Maybe. But negligence is a standard of behavior expected in [[tort]], where, by definition, there is no contract between the parties that you can look to to see how they were meant to behave. Negligence is all good fun - reasonable men (and women), Clapham omnibuses, snails, ginger-beer, ferocious domestic animals, escaping water - but itall evolved ad hoc to address a particular human dilemma - the plight of an unseen neighbour - that simply ''doesn't exist'' where you have a contract. Here you know damn well who your neighbour is, having spent six months hammering out a legal agreement with the blighter. So it seems all rather forlorn that one should fall back, weakly, on a standard devised by imaginative judges to look after the interests of folk who had no contract addressing what should happen were they to be carelessly struck by a punt navigating the wrong way up a flooded avenue.
Maybe. But negligence is a standard of behavior expected in [[tort]], where, by definition, there is no contract between the parties that you can look to to see how they were meant to behave. Negligence is all good fun - reasonable men (and women), Clapham omnibuses, snails, ginger-beer, ferocious domestic animals, escaping water - but itall evolved ad hoc to address a particular human dilemma - the plight of an unseen neighbour - that simply ''doesn't exist'' where you have a contract. Here you know damn well who your neighbour is, having spent six months hammering out a legal agreement with the blighter. So it seems all rather forlorn that one should fall back, weakly, on a standard devised by imaginative judges to look after the interests of folk who had no contract addressing what should happen were they to be carelessly struck by a punt navigating the wrong way up a flooded avenue.


Consider the handsome table to your left. This charts all conceivable breaches of contract. The easiest cases are in the bottom right: notr much loss, but the defaulting party has been utterly gratuitous in its behavior, and has no leg to stand on. The hard ones are in the top left: here there has been little misbehaviour (but note our condition to entry: the strict terms of the contract have not been obeyed), but this has caused a significant loss.
[[File:Contractual loss2.PNG|450px|thumb|right|Damage against Wantonness. Mapped. Seriousness pointed out.]] Consider the handsome table to your left. This charts all conceivable breaches of contract. The easiest cases are in the bottom right: notr much loss, but the defaulting party has been utterly gratuitous in its behavior, and has no leg to stand on. The hard ones are in the top left: here there has been little misbehaviour (but note our condition to entry: the strict terms of the contract have not been obeyed), but this has caused a significant loss.