回複：help please!!!

來源: 66196 於 2005-10-27 17:27:19 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 閱讀數 : (539 bytes)

The original contract is a valid contract. Yes, based on what you said the other party did breach the contract. The theory of contractual damage recovery is that it would put you back to the position as if the contract would have carried out. So, strictly speaking, the defendant should pay for the entire five years. The court, however, will also consider situations like economic duress and things as such. Unless there is a clear clause for the breach. I doubt you can recover that much. Punitive damage is usually not available.

所有跟帖： 

• 回複：回複：help please!!! -66205- ♀ 給 66205 發送悄悄話 (68 bytes) () 10/28/2005 postreply 08:22:51

• 回複：回複：回複：help please!!! -66196- ♀ 給 66196 發送悄悄話 (1057 bytes) () 10/28/2005 postreply 09:16:30

• 回複：回複：回複：回複：help please!!! -66205- ♀ 給 66205 發送悄悄話 (246 bytes) () 10/28/2005 postreply 09:22:47

• 回複：回複：回複：回複：回複：help please!!! -66196- ♀ 給 66196 發送悄悄話 (584 bytes) () 10/28/2005 postreply 10:08:17

• 回複：回複：回複：回複：回複：回複：help please!!! -66205- ♀ 給 66205 發送悄悄話 (108 bytes) () 10/28/2005 postreply 10:15:53

• 回複：回複：回複：回複：回複：回複：回複：help please!!! -66196- ♀ 給 66196 發送悄悄話 (313 bytes) () 10/28/2005 postreply 13:11:55

請您先登陸，再發跟帖！