[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:13:42 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
> So you have no clue about the term "nominal damages".  Look it up then.
> Nominal charges are _exactly_ used when a party would have the right to
> claim _actual_ damages rather than _contractual_ damages.

Go to doctor, silly dak.

"If there is a breach of contract, and no actual damage is shown to have
followed therefrom, nominal damages only can be given."

"So only nominal damages can be given for breach of a contract not to
compete if no actual damages are shown to exist."

"If the breach is such that actual damage might result the court is not
justified in assuming as a matter of law that the damages are merely

"if the 'injured' party has suffered no loss, the damages awarded will
be nominal --- merely marking the contractual right."

Man oh man, you *are* truly retarded, dak.


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]