rephrase and summarize this.The question of whether “damage” indicates any form of harm whatsoever or whether some
forms of harm are excluded arises. The concept of damage does, of course, include more than
harm for which compensation is recoverable, since satisfaction may be awarded for some forms
of damage.11 As indicated by the definition above, only harm in respect of legally recognised
patrimonial and non-patrimonial interests of a person qualifies as damage.12 This may be the
reason why losses and harm such as inconvenience, disappointment, fear or frustration are not
compensable in terms of the Aquilian action,13 or why a husband may not claim for the loss of the
comfort and society of his wife who has been killed,14 or why the frustration of an expectation of nheriting something does not constitute damage.15 One may, of course, also argue that the
losses referred to are damage but that the law refuses compensation for policy reasons.16
Reinecke’s argument17 that the frustration of income from an unlawful activity does not amount
to damage in the legal sense appears to be correct, although it has been subjected to criticism.18
Damage is only that reduction in the utility of interests which has been brought about by an
uncertain event.19 A reduction in utility which is sure to take place because of, for example,
wear and tear, illness due to natural causes, death and consumption cannot be regarded as
damage.20
Prospective loss (the expectation that the utility of someone’s patrimony or personality will be
reduced or will not increase in value) is regarded as part of the concept of damage.
refer to any relevant legislation and case law that may be
relevant
1 answer