Talk:Punitive damages

Law C‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article could really use some work.

Surely a law prof/student out there can add considerably to this ... LeoTrottier 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't think there's much more to be said. It's a somewhat basic legal term, and it is well-defined by this (albeit short) article. I fear that further exposition would rely too heavily on talk of specific cases, whereas I'd prefer, in this case, a more generalized article. -- Kicking222 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar is awful. --60.241.92.27 (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they go to the plantiff?

Why do punative damages go to the plantiff? It seems it would make more sense to award them to the public at large, perhaps by contributing them to the government's general budget or some kind of special fund. I'd be interested to hear the typical legal stances on both sides of this issue. --Mike Schiraldi 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-known criticism of the civil justice system of the U.S. as it pomotes 'sue culture'. However the UK can also be heavily criticised that in some cases (e.g. Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes [1993] 1 WLR 1361) whereby a calculated breach of obligation can profit in the long run as there are no punitive damages. On the surface, the most just awy would be for punitive damages to be paid to the court - the situation under Scots law. Bamkin 11:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient breach is bad? 69.253.222.184 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

egregiously invidious

From the abstract of this article: "Because they usually compensate the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously invidious. "

Egregiously invidious? Surely someone can write this in plainer words.

wikt:egregious and wikt:invidious. Admiral Norton 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non ultra petita?

Are punitive damages also subject to the non ultra petita principle like compensatory damages, or do they constitute an exception from this rule in favour of a public interest in the punitive effect? I.e. can punitive damages be awarded even if the plaintiff only claims compensatory damage?--SiriusB (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed OR

I removed some confused original research suggesting that an account for profits on the spycatcher case was an example of exemplary damages where it isn't. Exemplary is punishing the defendant over and above any loss it has made or profit it has taken. You can't get exemplary damages under a contract (added some material from Addis and the Law commission there); it is not at all uncommon to have an account for profits on a contract (a secret commission by an agent for example). ElectricRay (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]