Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
