DAMAGES WITHOUT DUTY

Stephen Smith argues against what he calls ‘the duty view’ of damages awards in private law. The duty view is the view according to which ‘damage[s] awards confirm existing legal duties to pay damages.’ I am credited with advancing ‘the most plausible’ version of the duty view – namely, the ‘inchoat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe University of Toronto law journal Vol. 69; no. 4; pp. 412 - 420
Main Author Gardner, John
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published University of Toronto Press 01.10.2019
Subjects
Awards
Breach of contract
Common law
Liability
Settlements & damages
State court decisions
Torts
CANADA
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Stephen Smith argues against what he calls ‘the duty view’ of damages awards in private law. The duty view is the view according to which ‘damage[s] awards confirm existing legal duties to pay damages.’ I am credited with advancing ‘the most plausible’ version of the duty view – namely, the ‘inchoate duty view’ according to which the court makes determinate, by its award, what was up to then an indeterminate legal duty. I respond here by arguing that strictly there is no such thing as a liability to pay damages. It is a liability to be required to pay (a specified sum in) damages.
Bibliography:UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LAW Journal, Vol. 69, No. 4, Nov 2019, [412]-420
Informit, Melbourne (Vic)
ISSN:0042-0220
1710-1174
DOI:10.3138/utlj.2019-05-22