The Damage

award of statutory damages. The statutory damages may be granted to an amount between the ranges of $750 to $150,000 per infringed work. As the name suggests, “Statutory damages” are damages whose amount or range is set by law, usually not taking into consideration the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff. Statutory damages to the defendants can be seen as a multiplier of liability, especially in cases whereby claims, or parties, are aggregated. On the other hand, statutory damages is a procedural

What are Punitive Damages? Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages may be awarded by the trier of facts in addition to actual damages. These damages are meant to compensate an injured party for the loss she suffered due to the harm caused by the defendant. Punitive damages are awarded for three reasons; (i) to punish the defendant, (ii) to act as a deterrent to the defendant and others minded to behave in a similar way, and (iii) to demonstrate the court’s disapproval of such conduct

DAMAGES IN THE FORM OF PENALTIES Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 (referred as ICA, 1872 hereinafter) provide the basic structure for enforcement, non performance and breach of contract. This paper deals with provisions regarding “penalties” on breach of the contract by one of the parties. Since sections 73 and 74 of the ICA, 1872 talk about the damages to be awarded in the case of breach and such damages shall be predefined in the contract while drafting the same and such pre

I PART A Is Jackson able to recover by way of damages; the students’ profits made on Airbandb; and the loss for the three months rent before 1 December? To show that Jackson may recover contract damages, the following elements must be considered: 1. Breach 2. Loss 3. Causation 4. Remoteness 5. Assessment of damages A Breach To claim damages, Jackson must establish breached of contract. The contract prohibits the students from sub-letting the property without Jackson’s express permission. Without

PROJECT – DAMAGES FOR BREACH UNDER INDIAN CONRACT ACT When a contract has been broken by the party who suffers by such breach1is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the , contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him by whch the natural course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract ,to be likely to result from breach of it , such compensation is not to be given by the any remote loss or the damage sustained by the reason of breach

REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES To avoid undue hardship to the defaulting party a line must be drawn separating damages resulting from his breach for which he should be liable and damages which, although in the broad sense of the word are as a result of his breach, are so remote to extent that he should not be liable for them. This line is drawn when separating General (intrinsic) damages from Special (extrinsic) damages. The courts insist that the damages should be direct rather than indirect. Direct damages are

Critique on “Damages” as a remedy for breach of contract under Indian, American, English and Chinese law. Project: Law of Contracts [pic] |Submitted to: |Submitted by: | |Prof (Dr.) Amar Singh | | |Principal Faculty, |Dheerak

Foreign Object Damage Prevention and Management in the Deployed Environment As a result of the United States involvement in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) many Air Force aircraft have been forced to operate in austere and rugged airfields. Force multiplying, rapid global mobility, and overall airpower are directly related to the military's ability to operate in the deployed environment. Although this mission is performed everyday and

seclusion in Jones v Tsige. This decision provided the foundation for determining damages under the tort. The foundation in Jones was modified by case law. This multiple case analysis will explore how an Ontario court should calculate damages, with reference to the following cases: Alberta v Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Hopkins v Kay, and Condon v Canada. Taken together, these cases indicate that a damage award in Ontario should reflect the offensiveness of the invasion of privacy and

they could settle the other case and secure the $2.9 million fee and cost reimbursement in that case. The jury returned a verdict for Young of $394,000 in compensatory damages as a result of Becker & Poliakoff’s breach of fiduciary duty. The total compensatory damages consisted of $144,000 in past lost wages and $250,000 in damages for