[terry]

Does anyone know what the "tortious ingredients" of Stanford's conduct supposedly were?

This sounds like a normal breach of contract case. Punitive damages aren't available for a breach of contract. So the punitive damages claim would rest on these "tortious ingredients." I'm curious (and skeptical) about the basis for that claim.

[terry]

Does anyone know what the "tortious ingredients" of Stanford's conduct supposedly were?

This sounds like a normal breach of contract case. Punitive damages aren't available for a breach of contract. So the punitive damages claim would rest on these "tortious ingredients." I'm curious (and skeptical) about the basis for that claim.