Hot answers tagged

60

What you're talking about is a liquidated-damages clause, where the contract explicitly spells out the damages to be awarded in the event of a breach. The law will vary some from state to state, but these clauses are generally enforceable. Some courts limit their use to cases where calculating the damages resulting from the breach would be impossible or ...


9

Such a clause would not generally be enforceable. Penalty clauses are generally not enforceable in common-law jurisdictions, although in some continental law jurisdictions they are (this article gives a civil law vs common law comparison). Given the number you're talking about, this doesn't correspond to a reasonable estimate of actual damages for breach of ...


7

A $1 trillion liquidated damages clause would be held invalid as unconscionable and as clearly intending to punish rather than compensate... unless you can show that $1 trillion is somehow plausible, which does not seem to be what the question is asking about.


5

Black's Law Dictionary (5th edition 1979) states that "Liquidated" means Ascertained; determined; fixed; settled; made clear or manifest. This is the sense of the term in which damages are "liquidated" by a liquidated damages term in a contract or statute. The damages are settled by a contractual determine rather than being "...


5

Because threatening a lawsuit is a nuclear option If you are thinking about a lawsuit then you have a dispute. The best, most efficient, most effective and cheapest way to resolve a dispute is to negotiate a settlement. The best, most efficient and quickest way to derail a negotiation is to make threats. People don't like being threatened. It makes them ...


4

Short Answer No. The immigration applicant is generally not entitled to his or her attorney fees in this situation, even though the government is violating one of its own laws. Long Answer The Black Letter Law Question The Right To Fees Depends On The Legal Theory Advanced A consistent answer doesn't exist at the level of generality of the title question. ...


4

Damages are (generally) not constrained by the defendant’s ability to pay The purpose of a fine is to punish the wrongdoer and dissuade others from offending. The purpose of damages is to restore the wronged party to their original position. In recent times, there is a tendency to link fines to corporate profits or revenues but that is generally as a means ...


4

Yes. Lawyers are generally subject to a malpractice lawsuit, essentially the same as doctors and other professions. A successful claim generally requires proof that the lawyer's services fell below the standard of care for attorneys, and that it resulted in some injury to you.


3

The person responsible for the leak pays This is a general principle that if your stuff causes harm, you are responsible for it as well of the costs of doing what’s necessary to stop it. This might or might not be you. Assuming the water is normal “splash” that is making its way into the unit below then it will be the person who is responsible for ...


3

Damages are an award to one party when a (legally recognized and approved) loss or detriment is caused by the action or inactions of another party, by requiring some further action by the second party to compensate the first party. Liquidation and related words refer to the process of turning assets (usually property of some kind) into their equivalent value ...


3

Rob is responsible. No Bull! Around the world, the law of wandering cattle depends on the details. New Zealand is no different. This case is covered by s 26 of the Impounding Act of 1955, Damages for Trespass. As you said, S 26(1)(d) says Bob is entitled to damages whenever his "land (whether fenced or unfenced) is situated in a city." This is ...


3

Possibly. I am analyzing this issue under generally applicable, majority, common law rules of law (applicable in the U.S. (except Puerto Rico and Louisiana) and in most countries that are or were part of the British Commonwealth), when not modified by statute or regulation. If there is a contract regarding what is to be done, the measure of damages is "...


3

“Serious harm” is a requirement in the Defamation Act 2013 The Supreme Court interpreted it in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anor [2019] UKSC 27 (12 June 2019) at [10-20]: ... it not only raises the threshold of seriousness above that envisaged in Jameel (Yousef) and Thornton, but requires its application to be determined by reference to the actual ...


2

It is not illegal for insects to be present in mushrooms offered for sale, at least following US and Washington state law. The FDA has regulations regarding food for human consumption, and 21 CFR 112 is relevant to your issue (specifically, produce for human consumption). Insects are covered under the term "pest". You should assume that the insects ...


2

It depends on whether "person" means "owner" If Bob is liable, it's not under the Impounding Act of 1955. In that Act, the occupier of land is allowed, but not required to impound trespassing animals. This is made clear in s 21 of the Act, which says "the occupier...may seize and impound any stock trespassing on the land." A ...


2

Yes, but ... For the situation you describe, no. First, Bob is not eligible for a refund - NZ Consumer Protection law entitles Bob to a refund in certain circumstances if the product is faulty - the product isn't faulty, just currently unavailable. If Bob can prove that the misrepresentation that the product was in stock induced him to enter the contract ...


2

I do not believe you have a remedy. The legal theory upon which a lawsuit or legal right would be based is that the windows constitute a "private nuisance". In Maryland, in a case involving an alleged light related nuisance, a recent appellate court decision set forth the legal standard an reviewed its application in the case of a drive in theater: ...


2

When dealing with a largeish company, threats to sue will often be dealt with customer relations. If their brief is to give you a runaround, that's what they will do regardless of your threats. On the other hand, once you serve notice, their legal team will often want to settle quickly out of court if it's for a modest amount. However, certainly for the UK, ...


2

Q: Can the company be given a $7500*10 million=$75 billion dollar fine? Legally, mathematically and hypothetically yes. However a proper reading of the Act at 1798.155(b) shows that $7,500 is not a fixed mandatory amount but rather is the maximum that can be imposed for each intentional violation that is no remedied within the statutory timeframe. Courts ...


2

In civil law jurisdictions, for example under French law, the drafter of the contract has a choice between labelling that 1 trillion clause either as a contractual penalty, or as liquidated damages. If they are secretly certain they'd never want to actually collect the penalty, they'll write whichever they think will make a stronger impression on the other ...


1

No duty of care is owed to non-persons Before a child is conceived (and, depending on jurisdiction, for some time after) that potential child is not legally a person. Therefore, no duty of care is owed to them at the time of the alleged negligence.


1

The Oxford English Dictionary (the standard reference source for historical word usage) gives 4 relevant sense and dates of first attestation: To make clear or plain (something obscure or confused); to render unambiguous; to settle (differences, disputes). {1670} To clear away, resolve (objections). {1620: rare} To determine and apportion by agreement or by ...


1

Can party C still bring a claim against B? Or should they sue party A directly? C ought to sue A. I'm assuming C agreed to the waiver (or else B would have declined to enter the contract with C). The waiver is a form of remedies clause in the contract between B and C. These two parties agree on which conditions C may sue B. Even if alleging a[n indirect] ...


1

Your tree, your damage This is a summary of the law in south-africa. Assuming that the neighbour can prove that the tree caused the damage then the owner is liable for damage caused while they were the owner. South Africa essentially uses the common law doctrine of nuisance. You are not responsible for any damage caused while the tree was owned by someone ...


1

There is no way to know without a detailed factual investigation by experts regarding what happened. Both are possible. It is also possible that more than one person has legal responsibility. Making an insurance claim may be the sensible first step for the occupants of the apartment below.


1

If you threaten to sue in the U.S., the other party can file for a declaratory judgement against you to settle the issue. More subtle discussion about your dispute with the party can keep the decision as to being involved in a law suit in your hands. A threat can give them standing to sue for a DJ, taking that choice away from you.


1

I wouldn't rely on a legal remedy. The police likely won't care and I can't imagine a lawsuit being worth it. Are you sure it was malicious? Maybe he just put it in an available bottle to make application easier. The sane thing would probably have been to ask him about it in the first place. For these minor issues you can, in theory, deduct it from money you ...


1

If a good is stolen, does the previous possessor have an indefinite immediate right to possession of that good? (Until it's returned) No. In all jurisdictions, civil claims (including torts) are subject to statutes of limitations. For example, in new-south-wales, this is covered by s21 of the Limitation Act 1969. The specific tort here is detention of goods ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible