View source for Polypearl Limited v E.ON Energy Solutions Limited

{{cn}}{{Polypearl Eon headnote}}

:''The starting point is that, as a matter of general law, a claim for [[loss of profits]] may be either a [[Direct loss|direct]] or an [[indirect loss]]. It will be a direct loss if, at the time the contract was entered into, it was likely to result from the breach in question.<ref>See McGregor on Damages 19th Ed at paragraph 18-167</ref> It will be indirect if there are special circumstances known to the contract breaker at the time of the contract such that a breach would be liable to cause more loss. '''Mr Preston QC submits that the loss of profits claim in this case is a direct loss. He submits that the most obvious (and likely) loss from the breach of an obligation to purchase Product is loss of profit. I agree with that submission''' though it would be possible to conceive of other claims of [[loss of profit]] arising from other breaches which would be categorised as indirect.

But does the reference in clause 10.1 exclusion of liability for [[indirect loss|indirect losses]] including [[loss of profit]] capture ''this'' [[Loss of profits|loss of profit]], which is a [[direct loss]]?

No. That would require the count to deem a claim for direct loss of profits to be a claim for ''indirect'' loss profits.The words in parenthesis and subordinate to the phrase “indirect or consequential loss": an explanation of it and not an attempt to place a direct loss in the indirect category. This construction is more consistent with business common sense since the most likely (and often the only) damage a plaintiff would suffer from a failure to order would be a loss of profits from that order. It is unlikely a merchant would wish to exclude this direct loss.

{{sa}}
*[[Consequential loss]]
*[[Remoteness of damage]]
*{{casenote|Hadley|Baxendale}}
{{ref}}