Fraud: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|glossary|}}Being a commercial fellow, the [[JC]] is only really interested in [[fraud]] as a part of the [[civil law]]. Not criminal fraud. Should fraud aggravate the damages available as a result of a [[breach of contract]]? No. And this | {{a|glossary|}}Being a commercial fellow, the [[JC]] is only really interested in [[fraud]] as a part of the [[civil law]]. Not criminal fraud. Should fraud aggravate the damages available as a result of a [[breach of contract]]? No. And this isn’t just my view. According to arguments aired in {{casenote|Hadley|Baxendale}}: | ||
:''It is difficult, however, to see what the ground of such principle is, and how the ingredient of fraud can affect the question. For instance, if the defendants had maliciously and fraudulently kept the shaft, it is not easy to see why they should have been liable for these damages, if they are not to be held so where the delay is occasioned by their negligence only.'' | :''It is difficult, however, to see what the ground of such principle is, and how the ingredient of fraud can affect the question. For instance, if the defendants had maliciously and fraudulently kept the shaft, it is not easy to see why they should have been liable for these damages, if they are not to be held so where the delay is occasioned by their negligence only.'' | ||
See: | See: | ||
Revision as of 19:18, 23 February 2020
|
|
Being a commercial fellow, the JC is only really interested in fraud as a part of the civil law. Not criminal fraud. Should fraud aggravate the damages available as a result of a breach of contract? No. And this isn’t just my view. According to arguments aired in Hadley v Baxendale:
- It is difficult, however, to see what the ground of such principle is, and how the ingredient of fraud can affect the question. For instance, if the defendants had maliciously and fraudulently kept the shaft, it is not easy to see why they should have been liable for these damages, if they are not to be held so where the delay is occasioned by their negligence only.
See: