Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rather, the principle is that "damages will be limited by an assumption that [a plaintiff] has taken reasonable steps in mitigation of loss", regardless of whether they have not in fact taken such steps. [3] Even where case law speaks of a "duty to mitigate", the duty has been cited as "not a demanding one". [4]
Mitigation is the reduction of something harmful that has occurred or the reduction of its harmful effects. It may refer to measures taken to reduce the harmful effects of hazards that remain in potentia , or to manage harmful incidents that have already occurred.
Damages for breach of contract is a common law remedy, available as of right. [1] It is designed to compensate the victim for their actual loss as a result of the wrongdoer’s breach rather than to punish the wrongdoer. If no loss has been occasioned by the plaintiff, only nominal damages will be awarded.
Special damages can include direct losses (such as amounts the claimant had to spend to try to mitigate damages) [15] and consequential or economic losses resulting from lost profits in a business. Damages in tort are awarded generally to place the claimant in the position in which he would have been had the tort not taken place. [16]
Insurance bad faith is a tort [1] unique to the law of the United States (but with parallels elsewhere, particularly Canada) that an insurance company commits by violating the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which automatically exists by operation of law in every insurance contract.
The reason is that once the performing party is informed of the anticipatory breach, a duty is then created for the performing party to mitigate damages as a result of the breach. Another situation where anticipatory repudiation can occur is where a party has reason to believe the other party is not going to perform and requests reasonable ...
Assume this health insurance makes health care free for the individual. In this case, the individual will have a price of $0 for the health care and thus will consume 20 units. The price will still be $10, but the insurance company would be the one bearing the costs. This example shows numerically how moral hazard could occur with health insurance.
The collateral source rule, or collateral source doctrine, is an American case law evidentiary rule that prohibits the admission of evidence that the plaintiff or victim has received compensation from some source other than the damages sought against the defendant. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that the wrongful party pays the full cost ...