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.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
