Punitive damages: This is a sum of money intended to punish the offending party and is generally reserved for cases where something morally wrong has occurred, such as a manufacturer intentionally selling dangerous or substandard goods to a retailer. Because of their historical origins, monetary damages are often referred to as remedies, while coercive and declaratory remedies are called equitable remedies. To bring a civil action in federal court, the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and “delivers” a copy of the lawsuit to the defendant. The claim describes the plaintiff`s damage or injury, explains how the defendant caused the damage, shows that the court has jurisdiction, and asks the court to order compensation. A plaintiff can ask for money to compensate for the damage or ask the court to order the defendant to cease the conduct that caused the damage. The court may also order other types of remedies, such as a statement of the plaintiff`s legal rights in a particular situation. The fundamental purpose of remedies in non-criminal cases is not to punish the offending party but, if possible, to put him or her in the position he or she would have been in had there been no violation. Or, as I said, the goal is to make the non-offending part complete. There are three distinct categories of remedies in common law systems. The remedy originates in the English courts and takes the form of a monetary payment to the victim, commonly referred to as damages or repletive. The purpose of compensation is to repair the harm caused to the victim by a party in violation. In the history of the English legal system, the remedy existed only in the form of financial compensation, and the victim must therefore apply to a separate system if he or she wishes other forms of compensation.
Although courtrooms and proceedings have been integrated, the distinction between monetary claims and measures still exists.  Non-monetary compensation refers to the second category of judicial remedies, equitable remedies. This type of action stems from the equitable jurisdiction developed by the English Court of Chancery and the Court of Exchequer. Declaratory actions are the third category of judicial remedies. Unlike the other two categories, declaratory actions generally involve a court determining how the law is to be applied to certain facts without the parties ordering it.  Courts provide reasons for deciding many types of issues, including whether a person has legal status, who owns property, whether a law has a particular meaning, or what rights exist under a contract.  While these are three basic categories of common law remedies, there are also a handful of others (such as the Reformation and the Resignation, both of which relate to treaties whose terms must be rewritten or reversed). In addition to allowing the parties to spread risk, lump-sum indemnity provisions provide certainty to the parties` agreements and allow the parties to effectively resolve disputes in the event of a breach. Instead of negotiating the amount of actual damage, the non-offending party only has to prove the reasonableness of the agreement. The forward-looking approach allows parties to rely on their fixed amounts without having to accurately assess the harm at the main hearing. On the other hand, if the reasonableness of the amount is assessed retroactively in relation to the harm actually suffered, the “parties must fully plead what they did not want to negotiate”.[quote]. Similarly, EBWS did not have an employment contract with its employees requiring them to pay wages for repairs, declines in market demand or for other reasons during shutdown periods. Any loss EBWS may incur in the future as a result of electing to pay its employees for repairs during a plant closure would be a voluntary expense and would not be taken into account by Britly at the time of entering into the construction contract. It is not reasonable to expect Britly to foresee losses arising from informal agreements that do not involve a legal obligation for EBWS to pay. “It is not assumed that [t]he parties know the state of affairs of the other or take into account contracts with third parties that are not disclosed.” [quote] While it is true that EBWS may have business reasons for paying its employees even without contractual obligations, for example to ensure employee loyalty, EBWS has not provided any evidence in the process to support a valid justification for such considerations. In those circumstances, that commercial decision goes beyond what Britly could reasonably have foreseen as damages for breach … Under the terms of the agreement, the full purchase price was due in cash by December 3, 1990. The agreement required Watson to make a $15,000 deposit into an escrow account with Kelstrup Realty and provided that “in the event of buyer`s default, a substantial sum will be forfeited as lump sum damages to seller, unless seller elects to seek actual damages or specific performance.