[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 <terekhov@web.de> 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.
>
> 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.
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
- Groklaw attacks Alexander, Rjack, 2009/08/23
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, amicus_curious, 2009/08/23
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, David Kastrup, 2009/08/23
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, Rjack, 2009/08/23
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, David Kastrup, 2009/08/23
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/08/24
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, David Kastrup, 2009/08/24
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/08/24
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/08/25
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, David Kastrup, 2009/08/25
- Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/08/26
Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, 7, 2009/08/23
Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/08/24