de minimis non carat lex

The law is not concerned with trifles. Loeffler v Roe (Fla) 69 So 2d 331, 47 ALR2d 319. A maxim leading to the rule that accepts substantial performance as a sufficient performance of a contract, 17 Am J2d Contr § 370; sometimes applied to exclude the recovery of nominal damages, where no unlawful intent or disturbance of a right or possession is shown and where all possible damage is expressly disproved, 22 Am J2d Damg § 2; and applied at other times to preclude reversal on appeal, 5 Am J2d A & E § 790. The maxim has no application to money demands. Kennedy v Gramling, 33 SC 367. It will not prevent the recovery of nominal damages for an invasion of one's rights, as by a trespass upon his lands, especially where the invasion, if not penalized, may result in obtaining a prescriptive right. 22 Am J2d Damg § 5.

Ballentine's law dictionary. . 1998.

Look at other dictionaries:

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.