conseqential damages

简明释义

间接损失

英英释义

例句

1.Our insurance policy does not cover consequential damages 间接损害, so you might want to consider additional coverage.

我们的保险政策不涵盖consequential damages间接损害，所以你可能需要考虑额外的保障。

2.The contract clearly states that the company is not liable for any consequential damages 间接损害 resulting from a delay in delivery.

合同明确说明公司对因交货延迟而导致的任何consequential damages间接损害不承担责任。

3.The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for consequential damages 间接损害 caused by the breach of contract.

法庭裁定原告有权获得因违约造成的consequential damages间接损害的赔偿。

4.In the event of a product failure, the manufacturer will only cover direct losses and exclude consequential damages 间接损害.

如果产品出现故障，制造商只会赔偿直接损失，并排除consequential damages间接损害。

5.The software license agreement includes a clause that limits liability for consequential damages 间接损害 arising from software errors.

软件许可协议中包含一项条款，限制因软件错误而产生的consequential damages间接损害的责任。

作文

In today's complex business environment, understanding legal terminology is crucial for both individuals and organizations. One such term that often arises in contracts and legal discussions is consequential damages. These damages refer to losses that are not directly caused by a breach of contract but occur as a secondary result of the breach. For instance, if a supplier fails to deliver materials on time, the immediate loss may be the cost of the materials themselves. However, the consequential damages could include lost profits due to halted production or additional costs incurred to expedite another supplier's delivery. The distinction between direct damages and consequential damages is vital in legal contexts. Direct damages are those that can be easily quantified and are a direct result of the breach, while consequential damages are more indirect and can vary significantly from case to case. This variability makes consequential damages a contentious topic in negotiations and legal disputes. For businesses, it is essential to clearly define the scope of consequential damages in contracts. Many companies seek to limit their liability for these types of damages to avoid unpredictable financial repercussions. For example, a software company might include a clause in its licensing agreement stating that it will not be liable for any consequential damages that arise from the use of its product, such as loss of data or business interruption. This helps protect the company from claims that could exceed the value of the contract itself. However, this practice can lead to disputes when one party feels that the other should bear responsibility for consequential damages. Courts often have to interpret these clauses, and the outcomes can depend on jurisdiction and specific circumstances surrounding each case. In some instances, courts may enforce limitations on consequential damages, while in others, they may find such limitations unconscionable if they leave a party without adequate remedy for significant losses. Understanding consequential damages also requires awareness of the foreseeability principle. This principle states that a party can only recover consequential damages that were foreseeable at the time the contract was made. If the damages were not foreseeable, the breaching party may not be held liable for them. This adds another layer of complexity to the assessment of damages in legal disputes. In conclusion, consequential damages play a significant role in contractual relationships and legal proceedings. Both parties must be aware of the implications of these damages when entering into agreements. By clearly defining terms and understanding the potential risks involved, businesses can better protect themselves against unexpected financial losses. Ultimately, knowledge of consequential damages empowers individuals and organizations to navigate the intricate landscape of legal obligations and rights effectively.

在当今复杂的商业环境中，理解法律术语对个人和组织都至关重要。其中一个经常出现在合同和法律讨论中的术语是间接损害。这些损害指的是由于合同违约而非直接造成的损失，而是作为违约的次要结果发生。例如，如果供应商未能按时交付材料，立即的损失可能是材料本身的成本。然而，间接损害可能包括由于生产停滞而导致的利润损失或为加快另一家供应商的交货而产生的额外费用。在法律背景下，区分直接损害和间接损害是至关重要的。直接损害是那些可以轻易量化并且是违约的直接结果，而间接损害则更为间接，且在不同案件中可能会有显著的差异。这种变异性使得间接损害在谈判和法律争议中成为一个有争议的话题。对于企业而言，在合同中明确定义间接损害的范围至关重要。许多公司寻求限制对这些类型损害的责任，以避免不可预测的财务后果。例如，一家软件公司可能在其许可协议中包括一项条款，声明其对因使用其产品而产生的任何间接损害不承担责任，例如数据丢失或业务中断。这有助于保护公司免受超出合同价值的索赔。然而，这种做法可能导致争议，当一方认为另一方应对间接损害承担责任时。法院通常需要解释这些条款，结果可能取决于管辖权和每个案件的具体情况。在某些情况下，法院可能会执行对间接损害的限制，而在其他情况下，如果这种限制使一方无法获得重大损失的适当补救，法院可能会认为这种限制是不合理的。理解间接损害还需要意识到可预见性原则。该原则规定，只有在合同签订时可预见的损害，才可以恢复间接损害。如果损害不可预见，违约方可能不需要对此承担责任。这为法律争议中的损害评估增加了另一层复杂性。总之，间接损害在合同关系和法律程序中发挥着重要作用。双方在签订协议时必须意识到这些损害的影响。通过明确界定条款和理解潜在风险，企业可以更好地保护自己免受意外财务损失的影响。最终，了解间接损害使个人和组织能够有效地驾驭法律义务和权利的复杂领域。