Breach of contract

Revision as of 11:08, 22 October 2020 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs)
Negotiation Anatomy™

Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.


This article is about causation the legal concept relating to contractual damages. For the statistical one see correlation — which doesn’t imply causation, true, but doesn’t rule it out either.
What happens when you don't do what you oughta.

Quelle domage

  • Just because one party breaches the contract, it doesn’t mean the other suffers a loss.
  • Just because one party suffers a loss, it doesn’t mean the other breached the contract.

For very sound reasons the law of contract imposes limitations (“causation”, “proximity” and “remoteness of damage”) on the damages a party may recover for breach of contract:

===Indemnity for breach of contract=== In theory, these pragmatic considerations of proximity, causation and remoteness do not apply where you have provided an indemnity for your breach of contract. This is why lawyers FREAK OUT about indemnities. By an indemnity you agree to pay a sum on demand in a certain event. The only question becomes whether you paid the amount when it was demanded. Note, in theory:

  • Causation: The question of whether the contract has been breached — usually the domain of the Queen’s Bench division — must be determined by the alleging indemnitor. Should that determination be wrong, do you have a counter-breach of contract? A restitutionary action for money had and received?
  • Remoteness of damage: Because your indemnity payment is for all losses howsoever caused, whether direct or indirect ... (ad nauseam) you are essentially contracting out of the rules of remoteness of damage, to your own detriment. You can hardly claim loss of profits weren't within the parties reasonable contemplation when you have explicitly contemplated it.

Consequential loss

See: consequential loss

Indemnities

Compare with an Indemnity where one party agrees to be responsible for a loss the other suffers even when the first doesn’t breach the contract.

See