[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:38:23 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> 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
> nominal."
> "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.

Thanks for the quotations.  As I said, contractual damages (which are
not applicable for a mere license) are spelled out and thus are not
subject to be replaced by nominal charges.  In absence of contractually
specified damages (either because of a license, or because of not being
spelled out inside a contract), actual damages are awarded.  Where those
can't be shown, nominal damages may be awarded.

As I said, as you quote, and as you don't understand.  Truly amusing
that you continue swinging your "truly retarded" phrase.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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