83,357
edits
Template:Concurrent liability: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "The sensible observation, in {{casenote|Tai Hing Cotton Mills|Liu Chong Hing Bank}}, that there isn't "anything to the advantage of the law's development in searching for a li...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*The Purchaser has suffered no loss but has no cause of action for breach. | *The Purchaser has suffered no loss but has no cause of action for breach. | ||
Where there's an ordinary contract between two folks and no aggrieved third party, it would be absurd for tortious duties to widen or constrict the allocation of risk set out in the contract. In any case you can always exclude tortious liability in the contract if you are really worried about it. Like so: | But in normal cases there's little to be said for [[concurrent liability]]. Where there's an ordinary contract between two folks and no aggrieved third party, it would be absurd for tortious duties to widen or constrict the allocation of risk set out in the contract. In any case you can always exclude tortious liability in the contract if you are really worried about it. Like so: | ||
{{box|This is a contract. Neither party will be liable to the other in tort under this agreement.}} | {{box|This is a contract. Neither party will be liable to the other in tort under this agreement.}} | ||