82,890
edits
Hold harmless: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{holdharmlesscapsule}} | {{holdharmlesscapsule}} | ||
A [[hold harmless]] is thus a slightly odd undertaking, because as a general proposition, a contracting party would not be liable for losses the other suffers unless they are caused by its [[breach of contract]] — that is, a [[hold harmless]] isolates a party from a liability it shouldn't have under a [[contract]] in the first place. It may operate to shut down an argument based on an [[Implied terms|implied term]], or prevent a claim in [[tort]] arising from faithful performance of the contract that somehow breaches a non-contractual [[duty of care]] to the other party (don’t get me started on [[concurrent liability]]). | |||
{{box|The paradigm case is the parking building that asks its customers to hold it harmless for damage or theft to their vehicles while parked in the parking building.}} | {{box|The paradigm case is the parking building that asks its customers to hold it harmless for damage or theft to their vehicles while parked in the parking building.}} | ||
===Not to be confused with an [[indemnity]]=== | |||
({{indemnitycapsule}}) | ({{indemnitycapsule}}) | ||
{{c2|contract|damages}} | {{c2|contract|damages}} | ||