82,891
edits
Contractual negligence: Difference between revisions
→{{tag|Negligence}}
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
==={{tag|Negligence}}=== | ==={{tag|Negligence}}=== | ||
{{t|Negligence}} developed in [[tort]], where there is no {{t|contract}}, and one must imply both the nature of the duty (the “duty of care”) and the class of people to whom one owes it. Hence, a rich common law tradition of [[Donoghue v Stevenson - Case Note|ginger-beer, snails]], [[Rylands v Fletcher - Case Note|flooded mines]], [[Ferae naturae|fierce domestic animals]] and so on. But where there is a contract, we know exactly who our “[[neighbour]]” is – the counterparty – and we know exactly what our duty is: it is written in the {{t|contract}}. If we do not perform the contract according to its terms, we have fallen short of an express duty to our “[[neighbour]]”. | |||
====''Normal'' [[Negligence]]==== | ====''Normal'' [[Negligence]]==== | ||
Is it reasonable to disclaim liability for breach 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. | Is it reasonable to disclaim liability for breach 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. | ||