Consequential loss: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}[[Consequential loss]], sometimes called [[indirect loss]], [[relational economic loss]], [[loss of opportunity]] or [[loss of profits]] is a loss arising from a [[breach of contract]] not caused ''directly'' by the breach, but is a second-order consequence of it: such as the [[opportunity cost]] to the innocent party of having a contract with you which you then breached. | {{a|g|[[File:Dramatic Chipmunk.png|thumb|Seems like a suitable place for the ''[[dramatic look gopher]]''. DID SOMEONE SAY CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS??]]}}[[Consequential loss]], sometimes called [[indirect loss]], [[relational economic loss]], [[loss of opportunity]] or [[loss of profits]] is a loss arising from a [[breach of contract]] not caused ''directly'' by the breach, but is a second-order consequence of it: such as the [[opportunity cost]] to the innocent party of having a contract with you which you then breached. | ||
Had I not been committed to rent you my car, I could have rented it to someone else ''for more money''. | Had I not been committed to rent you my car, I could have rented it to someone else ''for more money''. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
===Indemnities=== | ===Indemnities=== | ||
Pay particular attention to [[indemnities]]. where not [[Well-crafted indemnity|well-crafted]], as many are not, indemnities are oddly susceptible for consequential losses, because [[indemnities]] do not require a [[breach of contract]], and the usual rules of remoteness and foreseeability do not (in theory) apply. Badly constructed indemnities are likely to be treated rather like contractual breaches however, but where an indemnity is very wide (as many are) it is not controversial to exclude liability for consequential and indirect losses, and if your counterparty baulks at this, most likely she doesn’t really understand indemnities. Many lawyers don’t. | Pay particular attention to [[indemnities]]. where not [[Well-crafted indemnity|well-crafted]], as many are not, indemnities are oddly susceptible for consequential losses, because [[indemnities]] do not require a [[breach of contract]], and the usual rules of remoteness and foreseeability do not (in theory) apply. Badly constructed indemnities are likely to be treated rather like contractual breaches however, but where an indemnity is very wide (as many are) it is not controversial to exclude liability for consequential and indirect losses, and if your counterparty baulks at this, most likely she doesn’t really understand indemnities. Many lawyers don’t. | ||
Trying to recovering [[consequential losses]] for [[breach]] through sneaky [[indemnities]] is dick behaviour, basically, and another reason one should never agree to indemnities for [[breach of contract]]. | |||
''There is more — much more — on this topic at the [[indemnities]] article.'' | ''There is more — much more — on this topic at the [[indemnities]] article.'' | ||
===When consequential losses are foreseeable: [[stock lending]]=== | ===When [[consequential losses]] ''are'' foreseeable: [[stock lending]]=== | ||
Sometimes consequential losses ''are'' within the parties’ reasonable contemplation, they are easy enough to calculate, and it is fair enough to include them. Such as, upon a failure to settle a [[stock loan]]. The failure to make the onward delivery might incur a {{gmslaprov|buy-in}} cost from the onward recipient. | Sometimes consequential losses ''are'' within the parties’ reasonable contemplation, they are easy enough to calculate, and it is fair enough to include them. Such as, upon a failure to settle a [[stock loan]]. The failure to make the onward delivery might incur a {{gmslaprov|buy-in}} cost from the onward recipient. | ||
=== | ===When [[consequential losses]] are all you can realisticallt claim: [[confidentiality agreement]]s=== | ||
The accursed [[NDA]] where, if you can really claim [[contractual damages]]<ref>[[Damages]] arising from misuse of [[intellectual property]] aren’t at their core, [[contractual damages]], because [[intellectual property]] rights don’t arise by {{tag|contract}} — well, not a [[confi]] at any rate.</ref> at all, they are all likely to | The accursed [[NDA]] where, if you can really claim [[contractual damages]]<ref>[[Damages]] arising from misuse of [[intellectual property]] aren’t at their core, [[contractual damages]], because [[intellectual property]] rights don’t arise by {{tag|contract}} — well, not under a [[confi]] at any rate.</ref> at all, they are all likely to [[Consequential loss|consequential]] and speculative in nature. | ||
The chap who had your client list and used it to win business you aspired to win yourself has, at worst, caused you a consequential loss: the [[loss of profits]] from that business. But more likely, {{sex|he}} has not “caused” your [[loss]] at all: ''you'' have, through your crappy product. Look, I’m just the messenger, okay?<br> | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
{{casenote|Hadley|Baxendale}} | {{casenote|Hadley|Baxendale}} | ||
Revision as of 10:51, 6 December 2019
|
Consequential loss, sometimes called indirect loss, relational economic loss, loss of opportunity or loss of profits is a loss arising from a breach of contract not caused directly by the breach, but is a second-order consequence of it: such as the opportunity cost to the innocent party of having a contract with you which you then breached.
Had I not been committed to rent you my car, I could have rented it to someone else for more money.
- Direct loss: is the rental income you were supposed to pay me for the rental period. It is predictable, finite, determinate and easy the parties to hold in contemplation. “If I can’t go through with this the worst I can be stuck with is the cost of renting that car for a week.
- Consequential loss: the marginal extra income I could have earned had I not rented you the car at all, but rented it do someone else who was prepared to pay more for it. This is generally harder to get your head around. “Well, I was planning to be a free-lance limo driver, and I was going to worked non-stop, twenty-four hours a day for the whole period, only driving punters who were paying me £20 pounds a mile”. Almost everything about this is speculative, including what the claimant was planning to do with the car in the first place. It could have rented a car elsewhere (at exactly, or less than, its direct loss) and mitigated its consequential loss entirely without bothering the party in breach.
In the old days, there was some authority that consequential loss was not recoverable at all, unless specifically agreed. These days, the extent of damages are guided generally by the usual rules regarding foreseeability, causation and remoteness of damage, but in most cases, consequential loss will fail these tests—especially foreseeability—and are unlikely to be recoverable in an ordinary action for breach of contract, at least in the absence of an indemnity. Not so any more: see below.
Indemnities
Pay particular attention to indemnities. where not well-crafted, as many are not, indemnities are oddly susceptible for consequential losses, because indemnities do not require a breach of contract, and the usual rules of remoteness and foreseeability do not (in theory) apply. Badly constructed indemnities are likely to be treated rather like contractual breaches however, but where an indemnity is very wide (as many are) it is not controversial to exclude liability for consequential and indirect losses, and if your counterparty baulks at this, most likely she doesn’t really understand indemnities. Many lawyers don’t.
Trying to recovering consequential losses for breach through sneaky indemnities is dick behaviour, basically, and another reason one should never agree to indemnities for breach of contract.
There is more — much more — on this topic at the indemnities article.
When consequential losses are foreseeable: stock lending
Sometimes consequential losses are within the parties’ reasonable contemplation, they are easy enough to calculate, and it is fair enough to include them. Such as, upon a failure to settle a stock loan. The failure to make the onward delivery might incur a buy-in cost from the onward recipient.
When consequential losses are all you can realisticallt claim: confidentiality agreements
The accursed NDA where, if you can really claim contractual damages[1] at all, they are all likely to consequential and speculative in nature.
The chap who had your client list and used it to win business you aspired to win yourself has, at worst, caused you a consequential loss: the loss of profits from that business. But more likely, he has not “caused” your loss at all: you have, through your crappy product. Look, I’m just the messenger, okay?
See also
References
- ↑ Damages arising from misuse of intellectual property aren’t at their core, contractual damages, because intellectual property rights don’t arise by contract — well, not under a confi at any rate.