82,890
edits
Template:Indemnitycapsule: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
And that’s about it. an {{isdaprov|indemnity}} gives you a right of suit where, without it, you would not have one. | And that’s about it. an {{isdaprov|indemnity}} gives you a right of suit where, without it, you would not have one. | ||
In any case, '''[[indemnities]] should not, ''ever'', cover losses arising from | In any case, '''[[indemnities]] should not, ''ever'', cover losses arising from [[breach of contract]]'''. Like, ''ever''. Anyone who tells you anything different — and in this old salt’s long and grim experience, many people who should know far better will — is, [[for the time being]], [[without limitation]] and [[notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing]] contained, a ''moron''. | ||
For two reasons: Firstly, if the other guy has breached the contract, [[Q.E.D.]] ''you have a right of action under the {{t|contract}}''. You don’t need an {{t|indemnity}} to give you a right to sue. This is self-evidently true. Secondly, there are limitations on a party’s liability for [[breach of contract]] — questions of [[causation]], [[remoteness of damage]], [[foreseeability]] and proof of [[loss]] — developed over said centuries in the Darwinian crucible of the [[common law]] — that are there for very good reasons, and about which the parties are certain to disagree vigorously. An indemnity is meant to be a pre-agreed amount, so quite unsuitable for a contractual damages. There are those — as above, they are morons — who believe that overlaying a right to sue for breach with an indemnity will somehow subvert the need for adversarial inquiry into the breach. It won’t. | For two reasons: Firstly, if the other guy has breached the contract, [[Q.E.D.]] ''you have a right of action under the {{t|contract}}''. You don’t need an {{t|indemnity}} to give you a right to sue. This is self-evidently true. Secondly, there are limitations on a party’s liability for [[breach of contract]] — questions of [[causation]], [[remoteness of damage]], [[foreseeability]] and proof of [[loss]] — developed over said centuries in the Darwinian crucible of the [[common law]] — that are there for very good reasons, and about which the parties are certain to disagree vigorously. An indemnity is meant to be a pre-agreed amount, so quite unsuitable for a contractual damages. There are those — as above, they are morons — who believe that overlaying a right to sue for breach with an indemnity will somehow subvert the need for adversarial inquiry into the breach. It won’t. | ||