82,891
edits
Template:Indemnitycapsule: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
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. | 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 important limitations on one’s liability for [[breach of contract]] — questions of [[causation]], [[remoteness of damage]], [[foreseeability]] and proof of [[loss]] — developed over 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 is quite unsuitable for a contractual damages claim. There are those — as above, they are morons — who believe that overlaying the basic right to sue for breach with an indemnity will somehow subvert the need for adversarial inquiry into the breach. It won’t. | Secondly, there are important limitations on one’s liability for [[breach of contract]] — questions of [[causation]], [[remoteness of damage]], [[foreseeability]] and proof of [[loss]] — developed over 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 is quite unsuitable for a contractual damages claim. There are those — as above, they are morons — who believe that overlaying the basic right to sue for breach with an indemnity will somehow subvert the need for adversarial inquiry into the breach. It won’t. <br> | ||