UC知道哪位高手可以帮我翻译一下这段文章，很有挑战的哦
来源：百度知道 编辑：UC知道 时间：2024/06/24 14:39:30
One of the most controversial aspects of the assessment of damages for breach of contract is the extent to which there can be recovery for ‘intangible’ losses such as disappointment and inconvenience.
In Watts v Morrow,（一个案子） Bingham LJ （法官）assumed that public policy generally proscribed contractual liability for such losses, unless the object of the contract was to provide pleasure and/or peace of mind，or the breach caused foreseeable physical inconvenience to the victim. Unfortunately，Watts, and its associated case-law, offered scant guidance on the underlying rationale for either the general rule or its two exceptions. Consequently, more recent judicial pronouncements on this issue,
particularly from the House of Lords, 特别是来自英国上议院are to be welcomed insofar as they demonstrate a greater preparedness to eschew the use of arbitrary policy constraints in favour of focusing upon a claimant’s expected benefits as contained within the contract. In so doing, disappointment a
In Watts v Morrow,（一个案子） Bingham LJ （法官）assumed that public policy generally proscribed contractual liability for such losses, unless the object of the contract was to provide pleasure and/or peace of mind，or the breach caused foreseeable physical inconvenience to the victim. Unfortunately，Watts, and its associated case-law, offered scant guidance on the underlying rationale for either the general rule or its two exceptions. Consequently, more recent judicial pronouncements on this issue,
particularly from the House of Lords, 特别是来自英国上议院are to be welcomed insofar as they demonstrate a greater preparedness to eschew the use of arbitrary policy constraints in favour of focusing upon a claimant’s expected benefits as contained within the contract. In so doing, disappointment a
最有争议的一个方面的评估以违约为由损害的程度是可以恢复对“存在”等无形损失失望和不便。在瓦茨v,一个案子(宾厄姆LJ(法官))认为公共政策通常被禁合同责任,除非该等损失的目标是为了提供合同及/或愉悦的心境平和,或违约造成受害人可预见的物理不便。不幸的是,美国瓦茨、及相关的共同体,献上缺乏基本原理为指导的一般规则或其两个例外。因此,最近发表在这个问题上,司法特别是从上议院,都欢迎在证明一个更大的准备来避开使用任意政策限制倾向于将重心放在原告的预期收益为包含在本合同。这样做,失望和不便似乎受到相同的规则的康复。本文将试图证明,鼓励了这种趋势,认为一个合乎逻辑的原则的应用,包含哈雷v Baxendale罗宾逊v哈曼节省了任何需要使用的政策”作为一种限制的赔偿失望和不便,更多地考虑了一个由已知的偏好,并确保所有形式的不便和失望的规则;简言之,损害正确反映了全方位的申请人的预期赤字。摘要从法律研究的作者)版权归为布莱克韦尔出版社出版有限公司和它的内容并不能被拷贝或发电子邮件到多个站点或登载于一个邮件群未经版权持有人的书面许可。但是,用户可以打印、下载、发电子邮件或个人使用的物品。这个抽象可能被剥夺。无担保的精度的副本。用户应参阅原公告版的资料完整的文摘。(版权适用于所有的抽象)。