Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander

[Alexander Terekhov]

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.

http://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-4-3/Sec-1571-Classes-Of-Damages-Nominal-Damages.html

"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."

http://books.google.ca/books?id=8JtwkQrAC_kC&pg=PA547&lpg=PA547&dq=contractual+damages+nominal&source=bl&ots=Hk5GKeERB8&sig=NZ_RKOi3jztHYvriJwZnrCRlmLI&hl=en&ei=vnSSSonVKIme_AaA_sywAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

"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.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(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.)