82,891
edits
Contractual negligence: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→{{tag|Negligence}}
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Maybe. But negligence is the standard of behavior expected in [[tort]], where, by definition, ''there is no contract'' to which one can appeal for guidance on how one is meant to behave. | Maybe. But negligence is the standard of behavior expected in [[tort]], where, by definition, ''there is no contract'' to which one can appeal for guidance on how one is meant to behave. | ||
Now [[negligence]] is all good fun - reasonable men (and women), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus Clapham omnibuses], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson snails, ginger-beer], escaping domestic animals - but it evolved ''ad hoc'' to address a particular human dilemma - the plight of an unseen neighbour. That dilemma 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 contractless folk who found themselves [[Fardell v Potts|struck by a punt being carelessly navigated the wrong way up a flooded avenue]]. | Now [[negligence]] is all good fun - reasonable men (and [[Fardell v Potts - Case Note|women]]), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus Clapham omnibuses], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson snails, ginger-beer], escaping domestic animals - but it evolved ''ad hoc'' to address a particular human dilemma - the plight of an unseen neighbour. That dilemma 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 contractless folk who found themselves [[Fardell v Potts|struck by a punt being carelessly navigated the wrong way up a flooded avenue]]. | ||
[[File:Contractual loss2.PNG|450px|thumb|right|Damage against Wantonness. Mapped. Seriousness pointed out.]] Consider the handsome table to the right. This charts all conceivable breaches of contract. The easiest cases are in the bottom right: not much loss, but the defaulting party has been gratuitous in its behavior and however paltry the claim, has no leg to stand on. | [[File:Contractual loss2.PNG|450px|thumb|right|Damage against Wantonness. Mapped. Seriousness pointed out.]] Consider the handsome table to the right. This charts all conceivable breaches of contract. The easiest cases are in the bottom right: not much loss, but the defaulting party has been gratuitous in its behavior and however paltry the claim, has no leg to stand on. | ||