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
The same day he took the reins as chief judge for the District of Delaware, Judge Leonard P Stark substantially overhauled his patent practices.
The purpose of this bulletin is to highlight the fact that certain real burdens will be automatically extinguished on 28 November 2014.
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