82,891
edits
Wilful misconduct: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Many bones to pick with this, however venerable its authority. Firstly, by definition, ''any'' [[negligence]] is “culpable” — see the JC’s [[liability|liability ladder]] for a better investigation of that — and [[gross negligence]] — being supposedly a status between normal negligence and intention, though never sufficiently explained (is it a civil equivalent of [[recklessness]]: namely, ''actually'' forseeing a risk and taking it anyway, rather than just culpably failing to?) — is finnicky Americanism that has no place in sensible Anglo-Saxon commercial relations, where one’s [[mens rea]] doesn’t typically come into it. | Many bones to pick with this, however venerable its authority. Firstly, by definition, ''any'' [[negligence]] is “culpable” — see the JC’s [[liability|liability ladder]] for a better investigation of that — and [[gross negligence]] — being supposedly a status between normal negligence and intention, though never sufficiently explained (is it a civil equivalent of [[recklessness]]: namely, ''actually'' forseeing a risk and taking it anyway, rather than just culpably failing to?) — is finnicky Americanism that has no place in sensible Anglo-Saxon commercial relations, where one’s [[mens rea]] doesn’t typically come into it. | ||
Wilful misconduct has become the ''de facto'' American formulation of the sainted triplicate which, in English contracts, is rendered as “the absence of [[fraud]], [[negligence]] and [[wilful default]]” but in our mind would be better replaced with “[[breach of contract]]”. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Wilful default]] | *[[Wilful default]] | ||