Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Thanks for the quotations.  As I said, contractual damages (which are
>> not applicable for a mere license) are spelled out and thus are not
>> subject to be replaced by nominal charges.  In absence of contractually
>> specified damages (either because of a license, or because of not being
>> spelled out inside a contract), actual damages are awarded.  Where those
>> can't be shown, nominal damages may be awarded.
>
> First off, you wrote before that
>
> "Nominal charges are _exactly_ used when a party would have the right to
> claim _actual_ damages rather than _contractual_ damages."
>
> which is utter crapola.

Perhaps "contractual penalties" gives a better view?

> Both "actual damages" and "nominal damages" are "contractual damages"
> silly.

If they are not specified in the contract, they are not contractual.
Nominal damages will certainly never be spelled out in a contract
("Party A promises to maintain all terms of this contract and agrees to
pay a total sum of $1 should it be found to be in violation of it" --
nonsensical).


-- 
David Kastrup