82,891
edits
Template:Indemnity description: Difference between revisions
Template:Indemnity description (view source)
Revision as of 10:58, 8 December 2020
, 8 December 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[[Contractual damages]] are limited only by the depraved imagination of your lawyer: [[loss of bargain]], [[loss of opportunity]], [[consequential loss]], [[tax]]es, [[reputational damage]], [[restitution]], [[hedge]]-breakage costs, [[emotional distress]], [[nervous shock]], (needless to say, but inevitably said) legal costs and, if that is not enough, [[aggravated damages]] to compensate for the mental distress of having ones expectation’s cruelly forsaken — in our time of [[snowflake|snowflakery]], undoubtedly a vibrant head of recovery.<ref>But not [[exemplary damages|''exemplary'' damages]], which are not available at contract, [[as any fule kno]].</ref> Nebulous as they are, such allegations at least require evidence, and the law has developed techniques — [[causation]] and [[remoteness of damage]] — to limit unnecessary excess. | [[Contractual damages]] are limited only by the depraved imagination of your lawyer: [[loss of bargain]], [[loss of opportunity]], [[consequential loss]], [[tax]]es, [[reputational damage]], [[restitution]], [[hedge]]-breakage costs, [[emotional distress]], [[nervous shock]], (needless to say, but inevitably said) legal costs and, if that is not enough, [[aggravated damages]] to compensate for the mental distress of having ones expectation’s cruelly forsaken — in our time of [[snowflake|snowflakery]], undoubtedly a vibrant head of recovery.<ref>But not [[exemplary damages|''exemplary'' damages]], which are not available at contract, [[as any fule kno]].</ref> Nebulous as they are, such allegations at least require evidence, and the law has developed techniques — [[causation]] and [[remoteness of damage]] — to limit unnecessary excess. | ||
Now any economist will tell you there can be undesirable consequences of commercial activity, that neither party wants, nor can avoid, even if each keeps faithfully to the bargain. For these “externalities” we have [[indemnities]]. They allocate these risks ''away from the person on whom they would naturally fall''. One should therefore approach the request for an indemnity, with caution. | Now any economist will tell you there can be undesirable consequences of commercial activity, that neither party wants, nor can avoid, even if each keeps faithfully to the bargain. For these “externalities” we have [[indemnities]]. They allocate these risks ''away from the person on whom they would naturally fall''. One should therefore approach the request for an indemnity, with caution. | ||
If it would, and it should, you don’t need an {{t|indemnity}}. | Your first question should always be “''why''”: Why ''shouldn’t'' this loss fall on the fellow who would ordinarily bear it? If it would, and it ''should'', you don’t need an {{t|indemnity}}. | ||
If it would but it shouldn’t, consider how well you can articulate the risk and likely loss? If you can describe it with minute precision, all well and good: your counterparty might be minded to accept: if you have no more than a faintly discomfiting sense that [[Chicken Licken|the sky might fall on your head]] when performing the contract, and you want to be indemnified for that, expect a stouter challenge. | If it would but it shouldn’t, consider how well you can articulate the risk and likely loss? If you can describe it with minute precision, all well and good: your counterparty might be minded to accept: if you have no more than a faintly discomfiting sense that [[Chicken Licken|the sky might fall on your head]] when performing the contract, and you want to be indemnified for that, expect a stouter challenge. | ||