Hold harmless: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Hold harmless (view source)

Revision as of 18:55, 9 February 2022

1,404 bytes added , 9 February 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,890

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|glossary|}}{{holdharmlesscapsule}}
+{{g}}{{d|hold harmless|/həʊld/ /ˈhɑːmlɪs/|n|}} ''pl: hold'''s''' harmless''
-A [[hold harmless]] is thus a slightly odd undertaking, because as a general proposition, a contracting party would not be liable for losses the other suffers unless they are caused by its [[breach of contract]] — that is, a [[hold harmless]] isolates a party from a liability it shouldn’t have under a [[contract]] in the first place. It may operate to shut down an argument based on an [[implied term]], or prevent a claim in [[tort]] arising from faithful performance of the contract that somehow breaches a non-contractual [[duty of care]] to the other party (don’t get me started on [[concurrent liability]]).
+{{holdharmlesscapsule}}
-{{box|The paradigm case is the parking building that asks its customers to hold it harmless for damage or theft to their vehicles while parked in the parking building.}}
+It is thus a slightly odd undertaking, because as a general proposition, a contracting party would not be liable for losses the other suffers unless they are caused by its [[breach of contract]] — that is, a [[hold harmless]] isolates a party from a liability it shouldn’t have under a [[contract]] in the first place. It may operate to shut down an argument based on an [[implied term]], or prevent a claim in [[tort]] arising from faithful performance of the contract that somehow breaches a non-contractual [[duty of care]] to the other party (don’t get me started on [[concurrent liability]]).
-===Not to be confused with an [[indemnity]]===
+The paradigm case is the parking building that asks its customers to hold it harmless for damage or theft to their vehicles while parked in the parking building.
-A hold harmless is subtly different from an [[indemnity]] - it’s more like a beneficent inversion of one. {{indemnitycapsule}}
+When it comes to claims shipped in from third parties that come from faithful performance of a contract with a second party, a hold harmless may — or may not — be subtly different from an [[indemnity]] - it’s more like a beneficent inversion of one. Some American juridical minorities have advanced the view that a hold harmless protects against potential losses as well as actual losses, where an indemnity protects against actual losses only.
+The JC’s hypothesis — totally unsupported by authority, anything he could find in a textbook or on Google so, yes, he just made up out of whole cloth so use at your peril, but here goes — is that to ''hold harmless'' is to ''defend'' against behaviour; to ''take bodily action'' — while to ''[[indemnify]]'' is no more than to ''pay'' once a cost has actually been incurred. So you might hold someone harmless against suits, claims, actions, proceedings, meaning you must don your armour and get out there and fight the good curial fight, avoiding liability of you can — where an [[indemnity]] is no more than an obligation to pony up the readies once the action has been finally lost.
+===Odd spot===
+The plural form of “hold harmless” is “holds harmless”. Like “attorneys general”. Because “hold harmlesses” sounds stupid, and “harmless” is an adjective. And yes, I ''did'' just make that up.
 {{c2|contract|damages}}
+{{sa}}
+*[[Columbina Cavalier]], ''Defence Against Indemnities'' teacher at St. Crustard’s School for the Perpetually Pedantic in the [[Opco Boone]] stories.