Template:Adequacy of damages: Difference between revisions

You may be asked to [[Acknowledgement|acknowledge]] that the potential consequences of [[breach of contract]] are so severe that ordinary [[contractual damages]] might not be adequate and [[equitable relief]] might be the only means of protecting your counterparty’s position.  

Now the [[law of equity]] is the cuddly ''yin'' to the the [[common law]]’s nasty, brutish and short ''yang''. The [[common law]] trucks only in [[money]]. Equity offers [[injunction|Injunctions]], [[dawn raid]]s, [[Anton Piller]] orders and so on. Whatever — ah — floats your boat<ref>See {{Casenote|Anton Piller KG|Manufacturing Processes Limited}}.</ref>.  

So why does this fellow want your ''[[acknowledgement]]'' that [[contractual damages]] might not be enough? Notionally, this is by way of [[excuse pre-loading]] so when this poor sainted victim throws herself at the whim of the [[courts of chancery]], seeking orders for a dawn raid, it can point to M’lud (or at the [[defendant]]) and say, “You see, your honour? That rascal knew perfectly well I might need an [[injunction]] here.”

It falls to us to consider when the situation might arise that [[damages are not an adequate remedy]]. Not all that often, in this old buzzard’s opinion. [[Contractual damage]]s generally compensate for actual loss, not to [[account for profits]]. If you can say you’ve suffered any [[loss]] from, say, disclosure of client lists, it will be [[Consequential loss|consequential]] in nature, sufficiently speculative that courts are traditionally reluctant to award it, also presenting as it does uncomfortable questions as to [[causation]]: Was the reason you lost all that business to a competitor because your client list was disclosed, or because your product was crap?