82,882
edits
Hold harmless: Difference between revisions
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 7: | Line 7: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
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=== | ===Odd spot=== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
{{c2|contract|damages}} | {{c2|contract|damages}} | ||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Columbina Cavalier]], ''Defence Against Indemnities'' teacher at St. Crustard’s School for the Perpetually Pedantic in the [[Opco Boone]] stories. | |||