82,891
edits
No consequential loss - GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions
No consequential loss - GMSLA Provision (view source)
Revision as of 13:03, 5 September 2019
, 5 September 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
===Subject to Paragraphs {{gmslaprov|9}} and {{gmslaprov|11}}=== | ===Subject to Paragraphs {{gmslaprov|9}} and {{gmslaprov|11}}=== | ||
But what of the cagey [[caveat]] about Paragraph {{gmslaprov|9}} (''{{gmslaprov|Failure to Deliver}}'') and Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11}} (''{{gmslaprov|Consequences of an Event of Default}}'')? Search me. There is no obvious exception to the ban on [[consequential loss]] in paragraph {{gmslaprov|9}}, which talks about {{gmslaprov|Buy-In}}s and other self-help remedies which militate pretty hard ''against'' consequential damages. Likewise, Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11}} goes to some lengths to | But what of the cagey [[caveat]] about Paragraph {{gmslaprov|9}} (''{{gmslaprov|Failure to Deliver}}'') and Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11}} (''{{gmslaprov|Consequences of an Event of Default}}'')? Search me. There is no obvious exception to the ban on [[consequential loss]] in paragraph {{gmslaprov|9}}, which talks about {{gmslaprov|Buy-In}}s and other self-help remedies which militate pretty hard ''against'' consequential damages. Likewise, Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11}} goes to some lengths to articulate and itemise the termination amount calculations, all of which are focused on actually incurred expenses, and there is nothing in there that talks about loss of opportunities — see Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11.3}} in particular. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||