Contracts update: consequential loss — it's all in the definition
Recent developments in NSW reinforce the importance of not only expressly defining the term ‘consequential loss’ in contracts, but also carefully considering what categories of losses the exclusion is intended to cover, in order to avoid unintended consequences.
Until recently it was generally accepted by parties to contracts, and the courts in Australia, that the term ‘consequential loss’ meant those losses falling under the second limb of losses described in Hadley v Baxendale and which Lord Alderson B categorised as indirect loss (or subjectively foreseeable loss).
These indirect losses were held to be losses which are not a direct consequence of the breach, and were therefore not fairly and reasonably considered as ‘arising naturally’ or ‘in the usual course of things’, from the breach itself. As such, ‘consequential loss’ was not found to encompass damages for loss of profits or expenses incurred to remedy a breach of contract as these were considered outside of that definition…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the DLA Piper briefing.
News from DLA Piper
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from DLA Piper
On 4 December 2013, the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) opened an investigation into one of Italy’s largest joint purchasing groups, Centrale Italiana.
Georgia Court of Appeals rules franchisees can assert claims for relief under Georgia’s tort statute for violating the FTC Franchise Rule
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently upheld a judgment entered on a jury verdict against a franchisor for violating the FTC’s Franchise Rule.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Shearman & Sterling is making its presence felt in the City, squaring up to magic circle firms and looking to muscle in on key relationships. Private equity house Bridgepoint is one outfit that has had its head turned by the US firm.
A new breed of lawyer is smoothing the path for companies entering emerging or unstable jurisdictions