Wilful misconduct: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Wilful misconduct (view source)

Revision as of 15:37, 2 July 2021

1,069 bytes added , 2 July 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,882

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|negotiation|}}A variation on the similarly ludicrous [[wilful default]] with some common law heritage:
+{{a|negotiation|
+[[File:Naughty.jpg|450px|frameless|center]]
+}}A variation on the similarly ludicrous [[wilful default]], but with some common law heritage:
 {{cite|Forder|Great Western Railway Co|1905|2KB|532 at 535}}:
-“I am quite prepared to adopt, with one slight addition, the definition of wilfulmisconduct given by Johnson J. in Graham v. Belfast and Northern Counties Ry. Co., where he says: “Wilfulmisconduct in such a special condition means misconduct to which the will is party as contradistinguished from accident, and is far beyond any negligence, even gross or culpable negligence, and involves that a person wilfullymisconducts himself who knows and appreciates that it is wrong conduct on his part in the existing circumstances to do, or to fail or omit to do (as the case may be), a particular thing, and yet intentionally does, or fails or omits to do it, or persists in the act, failure, or omission regardless of consequences.” The addition which I would suggest is, “or acts with reckless carelessness, not caring what the results of his carelessness may be.”
+{{quote|“I am quite prepared to adopt, with one slight addition, the definition of wilful misconduct given by Johnson J. in {{casenote|Graham|Belfast and Northern Counties Ry. Co}}, where he says:
+{{quote|“Wilful misconduct in such a special condition means misconduct to which the will is party as contradistinguished from accident, and is far beyond any [[negligence]], even [[Gross negligence|gross or culpable negligence]], and involves that a person wilfully misconducts himself who knows and appreciates that it is wrong conduct on his part in the existing circumstances to do, or to fail or omit to do (as the case may be), a particular thing, and yet intentionally does, or fails or omits to do it, or persists in the act, failure, or omission regardless of consequences.”}}
+The addition which I would suggest is, “or acts with reckless carelessness, not caring what the results of his carelessness may be.”}}
+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}}
 *[[Wilful default]]
+*[[Degrees of liability]]