Talk:Damages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Damages as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech language Wikipedia. |
Contents |
[edit] Record punitive damages
Can't somebody make a list of the largest punitive damages (including settlemements) ever paid? In product liability and so on.--130.237.89.72 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This page needs a lot of work
This page needs A LOT of work. It's not at all a comprehensive summary of the concept of legal damages, and it is confusing even in so far as it presents anything. The introductory paragraphs lead a reader to think that they are going to read definitions of special, general and punitive damages, but only the the first two are presented. Then, in the main body of the article, there is no clear presentation of how the different types of remedies presented relate either to one another or to the three types or remedies presented in the introduction. No reference is made to the fact that all remedies are rooted in particular legal traditions (for example, equity and common law), much less to which types of remedies correspond to which traditions. And on and on...66.171.197.20 23:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Not sure how it's going to be structured with different systems in the US and UK (let alone other jurisdications) but I can input into the UK aspects. Let's have a go! --BramleyBarn 06:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Made some changes
More to do. Anyone else want a go? --BramleyBarn 08:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why reverted??
My changes were all reverted with no explanation. Please could this be clarified here.
--BramleyBarn 09:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contemptuous damages
I remember reading about contemptuous damages, in which the court is of the opinion that the prevailing party should not have prevailed (but did for reasons beyond the judge's control), and is awarded the lowest possible damages, i.e. 1p, 1¢ etc. Usually "nominal" damages would be higher to distinguish them, probably £1, $1 etc. The farthing awarded against John Ruskin would probably be an example as at the time the farthing was the smallest denomination of British money. Hairy Dude 10:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I realise that this clearly does not answer the point raised but an additional related point. Authors have stated that when contemptuous damages are awarded, the 'winning' party must still pay their cost although they would generally be paid by the other side. Fair enough (although I know of no judicial authority). I recently came across a textbook stating that where nominal damages are awarded, no ruling is made on costs. Any authorities?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.47.45 (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
