82,891
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 18: | Line 18: | ||
Now [[breach]]es of contract, under the law of contract, entitle a 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''. | Now [[breach]]es of contract, under the law of contract, entitle a 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 | For here’s the point: 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 one? | ||
So is that what negligence is meant to do? | So is that what negligence is meant to do? | ||