Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> 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.
>
> First off, you wrote before that
>
> "Nominal charges are _exactly_ used when a party would have the right to
> claim _actual_ damages rather than _contractual_ damages."
>
> which is utter crapola.
Perhaps "contractual penalties" gives a better view?
> Both "actual damages" and "nominal damages" are "contractual damages"
> silly.
If they are not specified in the contract, they are not contractual.
Nominal damages will certainly never be spelled out in a contract
("Party A promises to maintain all terms of this contract and agrees to
pay a total sum of $1 should it be found to be in violation of it" --
nonsensical).
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
