Consequential loss clauses: some comfort for contractors
By Clare Kempkens
The Commercial Court has ruled in Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Cirrus Oil Services Ltd  EWHC 87 (Comm) that damages for non-acceptance of goods under section 50(2) and (3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 represent the seller’s ‘loss of bargain’ with the buyer, rather than any loss of profit.
The defendant purchaser was unable to rely on a loss-of-profit exclusion because of the distinction drawn between the two concepts. The measure of damages to be awarded under the act is calculated as the difference between the price agreed under the contract and the value of the goods on the open market at the time of the breach. In contrast, a loss of profit is the difference between the cost to the seller of producing or procuring the item and the anticipated sale price.
The claimant, Glencore, entered into a contract with the defendant buyer, Cirrus, for the sale of Ebok crude oil. Cirrus required the oil for a sub-sale to Tema Oil Refinery (TOR). The contract between Glencore and Cirrus included the following exclusion clause at section 32.1, which will look broadly familiar to many readers…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Ince & Co briefing.
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
Damages for breach of terms as to quality — does the Sale of Goods Act limit such damages to depreciation in value?
This sale contract dispute provides a useful refresher with regard to the proper application of the provisions of sections 53 and 54 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
On 1 August 2014, the ‘Provisional Measures on the Collection of Tax on Non-Resident Taxpayers Engaged in International Transportation Business’ came into force.