[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: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:55:59 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
> > "Nominal charges are _exactly_ used when a party would have the right to
> > claim _actual_ damages rather than _contractual_ damages."
> >
> > which is utter crapola.
> Perhaps "contractual penalties" gives a better view?

But penalties are not damages you idiot.

Damages are the loss suffered by the non-breaching party in the event of
a breach.

The contract laws recognize a concept called "efficient breach" which
encourages breach of a contract if it's economically efficient to do so.
Compliance with a contract is almost always voluntary -- if you choose
not to comply, then you don't have to. You merely have to compensate the
non-breaching party for his expectancy interest (pay contractual

Penalties are oppressive in nature and serve the purpose of deterring
the party labouring under the threat of their imposition from breaching
the contract. 

"Courts are reluctant to enforce penalty clauses and in such cases the
sum stipulated is normally reduced. It has been perceptively observed by
Fansworth that in comparison to the bargaining power which parties enjoy
in negotiating their substantive contractual rights and duties, their
power to bargain over their remedial rights is surprisingly limited.
They are not at liberty to name an extravagant sum having no relation to
the breach, for fear of it being construed as a penalty. It is
interesting to contrast this with the law relating to consideration. A
man may sell his car for a handful of marbles, and the law cares not, as
long as he is satisfied. Yet the law would give no peace to a man who
claims ten thousand rupees for failure to deliver a handful of marbles,
branding such a clause penal."

> > Both "actual damages" and "nominal damages" are "contractual damages"
> > silly.
> If they are not specified in the contract, they are not contractual.

Go to doctor, 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]