Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTettenborn, Andrewen_GB
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Exeteren_GB
dc.date.accessioned2009-02-05T10:40:01Zen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-25T11:52:56Zen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2013-03-20T16:55:53Z
dc.date.issued2005en_GB
dc.description.abstractThe thrust of this paper can be straightforwardly summarized in two propositions. (1)If we accept the principle of punitive damages in tort cases, their appropriateness in at least some suits for breach of contract cannot seriously be questioned. The issue is not so much whether punitive awards should be available for breach of contract, but when. (2)Subject to one possible exception, there is no need for specific restrictions on their availability in breach of contract cases. It is true that there may be a commercial necessity to prevent every breach of contract suit from becoming a potential punitive damages claim: but this, I suggest, can be perfectly well satisfied by applying principles similar to those that already govern damages in torts.en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10036/48536en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherSSRNen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=938700en_GB
dc.subjectpunitive damagesen_GB
dc.subjectbreach of contracten_GB
dc.titlePunitive damages for breach of contract: what's so special about contract claims?en_GB
dc.typeWorking Paperen_GB
dc.date.available2009-02-05T10:40:01Zen_GB
dc.date.available2011-01-25T11:52:56Zen_GB
dc.date.available2013-03-20T16:55:53Z
dc.descriptionAuthor's draft submitted to SSRN working papers series; last revised October 19, 2006en_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record