Intentional misconduct. In New York, there is intentional misconduct when a person ”acts intentionally or does not act because he or she knows that (his or her behaviour) is likely to cause injury or damage.” 9 Intentional misconduct may occur even if ”a person acts so recklessly or, in circumstances where an act is clearly necessary, does not act to signal contempt for his act or inaction.” 10 A party alleging intentional misconduct must prove ”an intentional act of unreasonableness in defiance of a known or obvious risk so great that it is highly likely that damage would occur.” 11 The standard of fault is similar to that of gross negligence; But it focuses more on the damage caused by the action or inaction of a party. With some exceptions, the courts impose explicit agreements between the parties that limit the damages to be recovered in the event of an infringement1.1 The parties are free to ”negotiate against liability for damages caused by their usual negligence in the performance of the contractual obligation.” 2 Nevertheless, the courts will not impose the exemption from liability if they apply to ”damages inflicted intentionally or caused by gross or intentional negligence.” 3 Where an obligation is contractually or illegally due, the applicant must prove a breach of that obligation. In this regard, the applicant must show that the tradesman did not meet the due standard. Serious negligence is found only if the professional has made an error that no reasonable member of his profession would have made in his or her circumstances. Res Ipsa Latin Loquitor for ”it speaks for itself.” In order to prove negligence under this doctrine, the plaintiff must prove (1) the incident generally does not occur without negligence (2) the object that caused the damage under the control of the defendant (3) of the applicant did not contribute to the case.  Most jurisdictions say that there are four elements for a negligence action: A person who suffers negligent damage from another may be able to sue for damages to compensate for his or her injury. Such loss may include bodily harm, property damage, psychiatric illness or economic loss. The Negligence Act can be assessed in general on the basis of a five-part model that includes an assessment of obligation, breach, actual cause, obvious cause and damages.  In general practice, negligence means ”negligence.” But it is likely that any jurisdiction that interprets a provision of the contract using the concept of negligence will treat it as a reference to the unlawful act of negligence, which is based on the definition of ”Black`s Law Dictionary,” ”the lack of care exercised by a reasonably prudent person in a similar situation.” Responses to exams often indicate as a learned fact that liability for negligence is non-contractual, but it is worth thinking a little longer about what it actually means.