82,891
edits
Template:Adequacy of damages: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
It is a [[legal eagle]] “gotcha”, in other words. | It is a [[legal eagle]] “gotcha”, in other words. | ||
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 client liked your competitor’s product a bit better? “Wantonly exposing the crapitude of | 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 client liked your competitor’s product a bit better? “Wantonly exposing the crapitude of a product offering” is not, last I heard, a recognised head of damages under law of contract. <br> | ||