Talk:Damages/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

12.07.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie061 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Ronnie Hutcheon Principal Solicitor [1] - specialising in personal injury claims for adults and children. I am taking some time out to provide a practical approach to explain general damages. When I have more time I will provide more flesh on the bone.

Made some changes

More to do. Anyone else want a go? --BramleyBarn 08:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why reverted??

My changes were all reverted with no explanation. Please could this be clarified here.

--BramleyBarn 09:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

THIS PAGE NEEDS MAJOR REVISIONS

I am writing this to inform you that this page is in desperate need of revision. As a law student, I am quick to say that I am still learning and that everyday is a new lesson in the many facets and intracacies of the law. However, I cannot help but notice that this page is grossly lacking in both detail and organization. For instance, it does not even list all the major categories of legal remedies. A Wikipedia page on damages should, at minimum, discuss: legal, equitable, reliance, restitution, compensatory, punitive, consequential, substitutionary, ancilliary, general, special, and expectancy damages. The categories for each of these types of damages should be detailed and complete, state the differences and similarites, state examples of each types of damages,and give the reader a full understanding of what makes each type of unique. As it stands I would give the article a (D-)for content and organization. However, I am confident that with time and the assistance of many of the great minds throughout the Wikiworld, the article will truly be a great explanation of what the entire legal profession is run by. Damages.

76.230.143.249 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reese Serra

instead of just ranting, why not do something about it?

Piratejosh85 (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Singlular vs Plural

"grammatically, it is a singular noun, not plural"

Black's Law Dictionary disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.119.68 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

...so does the rest of the Wiki article, where the verb after "damages" mostly appears in the plural form.

Agreed. "Damages" is an uncountable plural noun, not a singular one. Someone should edit that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.165.114.132 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Pecuniary damages?

Can anyone explain how the term "pecuniary damages" fits in? Is it the same as "actual damages"? Grollτech (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Damages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101115095301/http://d-w-s.co.uk:80/content/personal-injury-loss-amenity-compensation to http://d-w-s.co.uk/content/personal-injury-loss-amenity-compensation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

RR

Zweiss

Sergio Ivrea VI (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)