违约的惩罚性赔偿

S. Hickey
{"title":"违约的惩罚性赔偿","authors":"S. Hickey","doi":"10.1177/1473779517725010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the recent decision of PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd [2017] SCGA 26, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered whether punitive damages could be awarded for breach of contract. In doing so, the Court was tasked with choosing between Canadian jurisprudence, which permits punitive damages in contract cases, and English jurisprudence, which forbids them. The Court ultimately decided against making an award of punitive damages and followed the reasoning of earlier English courts. However, Leong JA, who wrote the leading judgment, refused to rule out the prospect of allowing an award of punitive damages in the future. In this respect, it seems that Singaporean courts are more amenable than their English counterparts towards punishment in the private law.","PeriodicalId":87174,"journal":{"name":"Common law world review","volume":"46 1","pages":"239 - 245"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779517725010","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Punitive damages for breach of contract\",\"authors\":\"S. Hickey\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1473779517725010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the recent decision of PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd [2017] SCGA 26, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered whether punitive damages could be awarded for breach of contract. In doing so, the Court was tasked with choosing between Canadian jurisprudence, which permits punitive damages in contract cases, and English jurisprudence, which forbids them. The Court ultimately decided against making an award of punitive damages and followed the reasoning of earlier English courts. However, Leong JA, who wrote the leading judgment, refused to rule out the prospect of allowing an award of punitive damages in the future. In this respect, it seems that Singaporean courts are more amenable than their English counterparts towards punishment in the private law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Common law world review\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"239 - 245\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779517725010\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Common law world review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779517725010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common law world review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779517725010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在PH Hydraulics&Engineering Pte Ltd诉Airtrust(香港)Ltd【2017】SCGA 26的最新裁决中,新加坡上诉法院考虑了是否可以对违约行为给予惩罚性赔偿。在这样做的过程中,法院的任务是在加拿大判例和英国判例之间做出选择,前者允许在合同案件中进行惩罚性赔偿,后者禁止惩罚性赔偿。法院最终决定不作出惩罚性赔偿,并遵循了早期英国法院的推理。然而,撰写主要判决书的梁家杰拒绝排除未来允许惩罚性赔偿的可能性。在这方面,新加坡法院似乎比英国法院更愿意接受私法中的惩罚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Punitive damages for breach of contract
In the recent decision of PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd [2017] SCGA 26, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered whether punitive damages could be awarded for breach of contract. In doing so, the Court was tasked with choosing between Canadian jurisprudence, which permits punitive damages in contract cases, and English jurisprudence, which forbids them. The Court ultimately decided against making an award of punitive damages and followed the reasoning of earlier English courts. However, Leong JA, who wrote the leading judgment, refused to rule out the prospect of allowing an award of punitive damages in the future. In this respect, it seems that Singaporean courts are more amenable than their English counterparts towards punishment in the private law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信