82,903
edits
Contractual negligence: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
For here's the point, lazengem: The point of a contractual obligation is to have some means of enforcing its performance or achieving compensation for its non-performance. Is that what negligence is meant to do? | For here's the point, lazengem: The point of a contractual obligation is to have some means of enforcing its performance or achieving compensation for its non-performance. Is that what negligence is meant to do? | ||
===Negligence=== | ===Negligence=== | ||
Maybe. But negligence is a standard of behavior expected in [[tort]], where, by definition, there is no contract between the parties that you can look to to see how they were meant to behave. Negligence is all good fun - reasonable men (and women), Clapham omnibuses, snails, ginger-beer, ferocious animals, escaping water - but itall evolved ad hoc to address a particular human dilemma - the plight of an unseen neighbour - that simply ''doesn't exist'' where you have a contract. Here you know damn well who your neighbour is, having spent six months hammering out a legal agreement with the blighter. So it seems all rather forlorn that one should fall back, weakly, on a standard devised by imaginative judges to look after the interests of folk who had no contract addressing what should happen were they to be carelessly struck by a punt navigating the wrong way up a flooded avenue. | |||