Contractual negligence: Difference between revisions

A heartily-bandied phrase which sounds like it ought to mean something. This fellow's best guess is something like a "deliberate refusal to perform one's obligations under a contract": not ''too'' far removed from [[fraud]] (it raises a presumption of fraudulence on the part of the actor in agreeing to the obligation in the first place) but, in any weather, a ''subset'' of the class of events "breaches of contract".  

Now [[breach]]es of contract, under the law of contract, entitle an innocent, wronged fellow to redress. That's what it means to be a breach. So it ought not cause your heart to leap to have your counterparty offering to be responsible for ''wanton'' examples of this behaviour. It is hardly a mark of generosity. Indeed; you might wonder why he seeks to exclude ''less'' wilful "[[default]]s" - or even ''unwilled'' defaults - being, as they are, ''defaults''.

For here's the point, lazengem: The point of a contractual ''obligation'' is to have some means of making the person who owes it ''do'' it - or, failing that - compensating you for ''not'' doing it. Why else have an obligation?

''See - {{casenote|Fardell|Potts}}. No, really. Go there. You won't regret it.''  

:"All right your honour: I admit there's been a loss. I admit I caused it. I even admit I was negligent in doing so. But I wasn't ''very'' negligent, so I don't think I should have to pay for it."

Is it reasonable to disclaim liability for breaches of contract where you haven't been negligent? It sounds all right at first blush. 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 [[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]].

Are these the examples an exclusion from liability for negligence is meant to cover? Surely not: a contractual obligation is a contractual obligation. Doing things this way betrays laziness or a lack of legal acuity from your counsel. It is not that you wish to apply an exclusion from contractual liability if a party hasn't been negligent - what you mean to say is that your counterparty ''is only obliged in the first place to exercise a certain standard of care''. If you craft the contract that way, there's no need to carve out liability for non-negligent behaviour, because that behaviour wouldn't breach the contract in the first place.

"But", yon lazy attorney wails, "adopting that approach means we have to write in a standard of care to every obligation under the contract. As a plain English denizen you can't really want that? Surely it's easier to carve it out!"

But a contract is meant to stipulate what you are expected to do. For some obligations, a "reasonable standard of care" rider is not appropriate. The payment of money, for example.

{{Box|Bill borrows Ben's car. He agrees to return it to Ben on Thursday at 3pm. At the appointed time Bill presents himself to Ben, but announces that he has just been mugged, and the car has been stolen. His mugger was quite unexpected, applied overwhelming force, and immediately drove the car into a wall and wrote it off. Through no fault of his own, Bill is unable to perform his obligation. Should he be able to rely on a carve out from liability because he has not been negligent?}}