'Without prejudice to damages' meaning
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I was reading the some contract termination terms, and came across a phrase that I could not derive the exact meaning of and it's still bothering me. Can somebody please explain 'without prejudice to damages' in other words? As far as I understand, it is a truncated version of 'without prejudice to claim for any damages', but that does not make it any more clear. I don't have the document on hand right now, but here's a short, approximate version of it:
If Y fails to do something, X reserves the right to:
- Claim for compensation for any losses incurred
- Terminate the contract (without prejudice to damages)
If I'm understanding it correctly, in other words, terminating the contract does not bar X from claiming damages as well?
legalese
edited Jul 2 at 18:33
Barmar
9,4711429
asked Jun 29 at 10:35
Grungle
111
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I was reading the some contract termination terms, and came across a phrase that I could not derive the exact meaning of and it's still bothering me. Can somebody please explain 'without prejudice to damages' in other words? As far as I understand, it is a truncated version of 'without prejudice to claim for any damages', but that does not make it any more clear. I don't have the document on hand right now, but here's a short, approximate version of it:
If Y fails to do something, X reserves the right to:
- Claim for compensation for any losses incurred
- Terminate the contract (without prejudice to damages)
If I'm understanding it correctly, in other words, terminating the contract does not bar X from claiming damages as well?
legalese
edited Jul 2 at 18:33
Barmar
9,4711429
asked Jun 29 at 10:35
Grungle
111
1
I suggest you should consult a specialist contract lawyer. “Most people” think that “without prejudice” means, broadly, “without establishing any pre-conditions…” which would include “Terminate the contract without prejudice to damages”… However, one thing lawyers, judges and courts clearly do not like is brackets. Brackets in court are perhaps more abhorrent than commas or any other punctuation. Can you find one lawyer who thinks “Terminate the contract (without prejudice to damages)” could ever mean anything useful in itself; that is, without specific qualification?
– Robbie Goodwin
Jul 14 at 22:56
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I was reading the some contract termination terms, and came across a phrase that I could not derive the exact meaning of and it's still bothering me. Can somebody please explain 'without prejudice to damages' in other words? As far as I understand, it is a truncated version of 'without prejudice to claim for any damages', but that does not make it any more clear. I don't have the document on hand right now, but here's a short, approximate version of it:
If Y fails to do something, X reserves the right to:
- Claim for compensation for any losses incurred
- Terminate the contract (without prejudice to damages)
If I'm understanding it correctly, in other words, terminating the contract does not bar X from claiming damages as well?
legalese
edited Jul 2 at 18:33
Barmar
9,4711429
asked Jun 29 at 10:35
Grungle
111
I was reading the some contract termination terms, and came across a phrase that I could not derive the exact meaning of and it's still bothering me. Can somebody please explain 'without prejudice to damages' in other words? As far as I understand, it is a truncated version of 'without prejudice to claim for any damages', but that does not make it any more clear. I don't have the document on hand right now, but here's a short, approximate version of it:
If Y fails to do something, X reserves the right to:
- Claim for compensation for any losses incurred
- Terminate the contract (without prejudice to damages)
If I'm understanding it correctly, in other words, terminating the contract does not bar X from claiming damages as well?
legalese
legalese
edited Jul 2 at 18:33
Barmar
9,4711429
asked Jun 29 at 10:35
Grungle
111
edited Jul 2 at 18:33
Barmar
9,4711429
asked Jun 29 at 10:35
Grungle
111
edited Jul 2 at 18:33
Barmar
9,4711429
edited Jul 2 at 18:33
Barmar
9,4711429
edited Jul 2 at 18:33
Barmar
9,4711429
9,4711429
asked Jun 29 at 10:35
Grungle
111
asked Jun 29 at 10:35
Grungle
111
asked Jun 29 at 10:35
Grungle
111
111
1
I suggest you should consult a specialist contract lawyer. “Most people” think that “without prejudice” means, broadly, “without establishing any pre-conditions…” which would include “Terminate the contract without prejudice to damages”… However, one thing lawyers, judges and courts clearly do not like is brackets. Brackets in court are perhaps more abhorrent than commas or any other punctuation. Can you find one lawyer who thinks “Terminate the contract (without prejudice to damages)” could ever mean anything useful in itself; that is, without specific qualification?
– Robbie Goodwin
Jul 14 at 22:56
add a comment |
1
I suggest you should consult a specialist contract lawyer. “Most people” think that “without prejudice” means, broadly, “without establishing any pre-conditions…” which would include “Terminate the contract without prejudice to damages”… However, one thing lawyers, judges and courts clearly do not like is brackets. Brackets in court are perhaps more abhorrent than commas or any other punctuation. Can you find one lawyer who thinks “Terminate the contract (without prejudice to damages)” could ever mean anything useful in itself; that is, without specific qualification?
– Robbie Goodwin
Jul 14 at 22:56
1
1
I suggest you should consult a specialist contract lawyer. “Most people” think that “without prejudice” means, broadly, “without establishing any pre-conditions…” which would include “Terminate the contract without prejudice to damages”… However, one thing lawyers, judges and courts clearly do not like is brackets. Brackets in court are perhaps more abhorrent than commas or any other punctuation. Can you find one lawyer who thinks “Terminate the contract (without prejudice to damages)” could ever mean anything useful in itself; that is, without specific qualification?
– Robbie Goodwin
Jul 14 at 22:56
I suggest you should consult a specialist contract lawyer. “Most people” think that “without prejudice” means, broadly, “without establishing any pre-conditions…” which would include “Terminate the contract without prejudice to damages”… However, one thing lawyers, judges and courts clearly do not like is brackets. Brackets in court are perhaps more abhorrent than commas or any other punctuation. Can you find one lawyer who thinks “Terminate the contract (without prejudice to damages)” could ever mean anything useful in itself; that is, without specific qualification?
– Robbie Goodwin
Jul 14 at 22:56
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
without prejudice TFD
By invoking this statement, a party is asking for assurances from
the other party that the information provided by them will not be used
against them to their disadvantage. Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.
answered Jun 29 at 12:13
lbf
16.6k21561
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If I'm understanding it correctly, in other words, terminating the contract does not bar X from claiming damages as well?
Yes, you are correct.
X would be able to terminate the contract (which is inherently reciprocal), but still retain the faculty to claim for damages. Without doing so, X would still be liable to comply with his/her part of the contract, all things being equal.
answered Jun 29 at 15:02
Daniel A
288
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
"Without prejudice to your right to damages" might mean "without having any adverse effect on your right to claim damages" but if you were drafting a contract you should consider the possibility that it could be argued that the AMOUNT OF your damages was affected despite such a clause.
That's why we go to law school.
answered Jun 30 at 17:40
Gordon Phillips
111
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
without prejudice TFD
By invoking this statement, a party is asking for assurances from
the other party that the information provided by them will not be used
against them to their disadvantage. Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.
answered Jun 29 at 12:13
lbf
16.6k21561
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
without prejudice TFD
By invoking this statement, a party is asking for assurances from
the other party that the information provided by them will not be used
against them to their disadvantage. Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.
answered Jun 29 at 12:13
lbf
16.6k21561
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
without prejudice TFD
By invoking this statement, a party is asking for assurances from
the other party that the information provided by them will not be used
against them to their disadvantage. Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.
answered Jun 29 at 12:13
lbf
16.6k21561
without prejudice TFD
By invoking this statement, a party is asking for assurances from
the other party that the information provided by them will not be used
against them to their disadvantage. Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.
answered Jun 29 at 12:13
lbf
16.6k21561
answered Jun 29 at 12:13
lbf
16.6k21561
answered Jun 29 at 12:13
lbf
16.6k21561
answered Jun 29 at 12:13
lbf
16.6k21561
16.6k21561
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If I'm understanding it correctly, in other words, terminating the contract does not bar X from claiming damages as well?
Yes, you are correct.
X would be able to terminate the contract (which is inherently reciprocal), but still retain the faculty to claim for damages. Without doing so, X would still be liable to comply with his/her part of the contract, all things being equal.
answered Jun 29 at 15:02
Daniel A
288
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If I'm understanding it correctly, in other words, terminating the contract does not bar X from claiming damages as well?
Yes, you are correct.
X would be able to terminate the contract (which is inherently reciprocal), but still retain the faculty to claim for damages. Without doing so, X would still be liable to comply with his/her part of the contract, all things being equal.
answered Jun 29 at 15:02
Daniel A
288
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
If I'm understanding it correctly, in other words, terminating the contract does not bar X from claiming damages as well?
Yes, you are correct.
X would be able to terminate the contract (which is inherently reciprocal), but still retain the faculty to claim for damages. Without doing so, X would still be liable to comply with his/her part of the contract, all things being equal.
answered Jun 29 at 15:02
Daniel A
288
If I'm understanding it correctly, in other words, terminating the contract does not bar X from claiming damages as well?
Yes, you are correct.
X would be able to terminate the contract (which is inherently reciprocal), but still retain the faculty to claim for damages. Without doing so, X would still be liable to comply with his/her part of the contract, all things being equal.
answered Jun 29 at 15:02
Daniel A
288
answered Jun 29 at 15:02
Daniel A
288
answered Jun 29 at 15:02
Daniel A
288
answered Jun 29 at 15:02
Daniel A
288
288
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
"Without prejudice to your right to damages" might mean "without having any adverse effect on your right to claim damages" but if you were drafting a contract you should consider the possibility that it could be argued that the AMOUNT OF your damages was affected despite such a clause.
That's why we go to law school.
answered Jun 30 at 17:40
Gordon Phillips
111
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
"Without prejudice to your right to damages" might mean "without having any adverse effect on your right to claim damages" but if you were drafting a contract you should consider the possibility that it could be argued that the AMOUNT OF your damages was affected despite such a clause.
That's why we go to law school.
answered Jun 30 at 17:40
Gordon Phillips
111
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
"Without prejudice to your right to damages" might mean "without having any adverse effect on your right to claim damages" but if you were drafting a contract you should consider the possibility that it could be argued that the AMOUNT OF your damages was affected despite such a clause.
That's why we go to law school.
answered Jun 30 at 17:40
Gordon Phillips
111
"Without prejudice to your right to damages" might mean "without having any adverse effect on your right to claim damages" but if you were drafting a contract you should consider the possibility that it could be argued that the AMOUNT OF your damages was affected despite such a clause.
That's why we go to law school.
answered Jun 30 at 17:40
Gordon Phillips
111
answered Jun 30 at 17:40
Gordon Phillips
111
answered Jun 30 at 17:40
Gordon Phillips
111
answered Jun 30 at 17:40
Gordon Phillips
111
111
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452502%2fwithout-prejudice-to-damages-meaning%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
I suggest you should consult a specialist contract lawyer. “Most people” think that “without prejudice” means, broadly, “without establishing any pre-conditions…” which would include “Terminate the contract without prejudice to damages”… However, one thing lawyers, judges and courts clearly do not like is brackets. Brackets in court are perhaps more abhorrent than commas or any other punctuation. Can you find one lawyer who thinks “Terminate the contract (without prejudice to damages)” could ever mean anything useful in itself; that is, without specific qualification?
– Robbie Goodwin
Jul 14 at 22:56