Breach of contract: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
''Just because one party suffers a loss, it doesn’t mean the other breached the contract.'' <br />
''Just because one party suffers a loss, it doesn’t mean the other breached the contract.'' <br />
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:<br />
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:<br />
*'''Causation''': The breach needs to be the operating cause of the innocent party’s loss;
*'''Causation''': The breach needs to be the [[operating cause]] of the innocent party’s loss (is that the ''[[causa sine qua non]]''?);
*'''Remoteness''': They need to have been the sorts of losses the parties reasonably contemplated might arise from a breach when they entered the contract – i.e. they need to be reasonably foreseeable - the “usual consequences” of a breach of the contract.
*'''Remoteness''': They need to have been the sorts of losses the parties reasonably contemplated might arise from a breach when they entered the contract – i.e. they need to be reasonably foreseeable - the “usual consequences” of a breach of the contract.