Template:Indemnitycapsule: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:Indemnitycapsule (view source)

Revision as of 11:58, 3 December 2021

720 bytes added , 3 December 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Under an [[indemnity]] one party agrees to reimburse the other for specified losses it incurs in performing the {{tag|contract}}, even though they don’t arise from [[breach of contract]]. This is a fair allocation of loss if one party may incur definable losses which, [[but for]] its obligations to the indemnifying party under the contract, it would not. For example, a retrospective [[tax]] imposed unexpectedly upon a custodian by dint of its holding a client asset. But that is much more unusual that the incidence of an unnecessary [[indemnity]] in a standard form {{t|contract}}. Most of the time the remedies developed over centuries of the [[common law]] of {{t|contract}} do just fine. Since [[indemnities]] reallocate losses away from those on whom they would naturally fall, and are apt to short-circuit sensible limitations on contractual liability (also developed over  said centuries), one should resist [[indemnities]] where they are not absolutely necessary. Which is most of the time.
+Under an [[indemnity]], one party (the “[[indemnifier]]”) agrees to pay the other the “[[indemnified]]”) an agreed amount should a specified event occur during the {{t|contract}}.<ref>When you put it like that it sounds rather like a {{t|derivative}}, doesn’t it?</ref>
+The “events” covered by an {{t|indemnity}} are usually unexpected costs and expenses the [[indemnified]] party incurs while performing obligations under the {{t|contract}}, the benefits of which accrue exclusively to the [[indemnifying party]]: things like [[tax]] charges levied on a custodian relating to assets it holds for its clients. Without an indemnity, the party incurring these costs would just have to wear them. This would be a windfall for the benefiting party.
+An {{t|indemnity}} thus creates a payment obligation under the {{t|contract}} where one would not otherwise exist. If the indemnified event occurs and the [[Indemnified|indemnifi''er'']] doesn’t pay, the [[Indemnified|indemnifi''ee'']] has an action in [[breach of contract]].
+And that’s about it. An {{t|indemnity}} gives you a right to sue where, without it, you would not have one.
+====[[Indemnity for breach of contract]]? ''No'', sir.====
+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 — should be [[Get your coat|directed to the coat check]]. Here is why: 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}}. This is self-evidently true.