Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In Australia, punitive damages are not available for breach of contract, [5] but are possible for tort cases.. The law is less settled regarding equitable wrongs. In Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd, [6] the defendant employees knowingly breached contractual and fiduciary duties to their employer by diverting business to themselves and misusing its confidential information.
In a case in which exemplary damages are appropriate, a jury should be directed that if, but only if, the sum which they have in mind to award as compensation (which may of course be a sum aggravated by the way in which the Defendant has behaved to the Plaintiff) is inadequate to punish him for his outrageous conduct, to mark their disapproval ...
In the United States punitive damages awards are subject to the limitations imposed by the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In England and Wales, exemplary damages are limited to the circumstances set out by Lord Devlin in the leading case of Rookes v. Barnard. They are:
The jury was told that aggravated damages are a type of compensatory damage, and can include the behaviour and conduct of the wrongdoer, including refusing to apologise to the alleged victim, as ...
The suit seeks monetary damages in excess of $15,000 as well as unspecified punitive and exemplary damages. A pre-trial conference between the parties is scheduled for Oct. 10.
The rapper is also seeking punitive and exemplary damages for “severe harm” caused by Joy’s “false and defamatory statements.” 50 Cent and Joy welcomed Sire in 2012 and continued to ...
the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the award for aggravated damages, the appellant can sue in either contract or tort for "bad faith discharge", the appellant was entitled to punitive damages, and; the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the appellant's reasonable notice damages from 24 to 15 months.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".