82,971
edits
Template:Concurrent liability: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
These are unusual cases. In the normal run of things there’s little to be said for [[concurrent liability]]. In a straightforward bilateral contract with no aggrieved Person B, it would be absurd for tortious duties that arise at general law to widen or constrict the allocation of risk set out in the contract. You can contract out of tortious duties (even if that isn’t obvious in principle to you, Lord Goff said so in {{casenote|Henderson|Merrett}}). Unless your contract is uncommonly vague, by just having one you will have done so. You can always explicitly exclude tortious liability in the contract if you are really worried about it (though it does look a little “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]” to this pair of eyes. It’s not hard to do: | These are unusual cases. In the normal run of things there’s little to be said for [[concurrent liability]]. In a straightforward bilateral contract with no aggrieved Person B, it would be absurd for tortious duties that arise at general law to widen or constrict the allocation of risk set out in the contract. You can contract out of tortious duties (even if that isn’t obvious in principle to you, Lord Goff said so in {{casenote|Henderson|Merrett}}). Unless your contract is uncommonly vague, by just having one you will have done so. You can always explicitly exclude tortious liability in the contract if you are really worried about it (though it does look a little “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]” to this pair of eyes. It’s not hard to do: | ||
{{box|This is a contract. Neither party will be liable to the other in tort under | {{box|This is a {{t|contract}} . Neither party will be liable to the other in tort under it.}} | ||