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.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
Affected parties must think about who will be the ’operator’ for the purposes of the new European regulations.
The commercial understanding of the phrases ‘as is’ or ‘as is where is’ has always been that a buyer must take a yacht in the condition in which she is found at the time defined in the contract.