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 in:The University of Toronto law journal 2019-10, Vol.69 (4), p.412-420
Main Author: Gardner, John
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Awards
Breach of contract
Common law
Liability
Settlements & damages
State court decisions
Torts
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
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.
ISSN:0042-0220
1710-1174
DOI:10.3138/utlj.2019-05-22