82,449
edits
Exemplary damages: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|contract| | {{a|contract| | ||
{{image|Naughty|jpg|A candidate for [[exemplary damages]], yesterday.}}{{subtable|{{small|80}}{{loss v damages}}</div>}} | |||
}}{{d|Exemplary damages|/ɪgˈzɛmpləri ˈdæmɪʤɪz/|n|}} [''Only for civil wrongs not governed by a [[contract]]''] | }}{{d|Exemplary damages|/ɪgˈzɛmpləri ˈdæmɪʤɪz/|n|}} [''Only for civil wrongs not governed by a [[contract]]''] | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{Punitive damages capsule}} | {{Punitive damages capsule}} | ||
===Exclusion of liability for=== | |||
You will see contracts excluding liability for [[consequential loss]] — fair enough, if a bit pedantic, seeing as typically one couldn’t claim it anyway — but also wrapping into that a carve out for liability for [[exemplary damages]], too. We query that: firstly, under a ''simple'' contract, there ''are'' no exemplary damages, as per above; secondly, even if there were — and there might be if the contract conferred some kind of fiduciary relationship, and therefore sounded in equity — we would ask ''what justification'' there would be for a party being exonerated from punishment from its egregious wrongdoing. You only are even vaguely in the frame for exemplary damages if your behaviour is ''so'' out of order, so contumelious in its high-handedness or outrage — that it would be unconscionable to let you get away with it unsanctioned. | |||
We wonder, too, whether a contractual term purporting to bar a non-contractual remedy would be enforceable in any case, especially where the person seeking to rely on it has, by definition, acted in bad faith. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Consequential loss]] | *[[Consequential loss]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||