82,034
edits
Consequential loss: Difference between revisions
→Example - buying a car
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
===Example - buying a car=== | ===Example - buying a car=== | ||
Where a party to a contract for the sale and purchase of a car has breached the {{tag|contract}} by failing to deliver the car: | Where a party to a contract for the sale and purchase of a car has breached the {{tag|contract}} by failing to deliver the car: | ||
'''[[Direct loss]]''': is the value of the undelivered car. | *'''[[Direct loss]]''': is the value of the undelivered car. | ||
'''Consequential loss''': is the loss of profit the purchaser could have earned by using the car had it been delivered on time. | *'''[[Consequential loss]]''': is the loss of the profit the purchaser could have earned by using the car had it been delivered on time. | ||
The value of the [[direct loss]] is easy enough to assess: | The value of the [[direct loss]] is easy enough to assess: it’s the prevailing market value of a new car. It is also predictable, finite, determinate and easy for a contracting party to hold in contemplation. “If I can’t go through with this the worst I can be stuck with is the value of a new car. They currently retail at £25 grand.” You might get a fright if Volkswagen suddenly puts its prices up, but it isn’t going to kill you. The cost to the innocent party of mitigating its consequential loss is also, and necessarily, capped at exactly the value of that direct loss: it can buy, or rent, a car from someone else. | ||
[[Consequential loss]], on the other hand, is generally harder to get your head around. “Well, I was planning to be a free-lance limousine driver, and I was going to worked non-stop, twenty four hours a day for a month, only driving punters who were paying me £20 pounds a mile”. Almost everything about this involves some kind of speculation, including what the plaintiff was planning to do with the car in the first place. The plaintiff could have acquired a car elsewhere (at exactly, or less than, its direct loss) and mitigated its ''consequential'' loss entirely without bothering the defendant. | [[Consequential loss]], on the other hand, is generally harder to get your head around. “Well, I was planning to be a free-lance limousine driver, and I was going to worked non-stop, twenty four hours a day for a month, only driving punters who were paying me £20 pounds a mile”. Almost everything about this involves some kind of speculation, including what the plaintiff was planning to do with the car in the first place. The plaintiff could have acquired a car elsewhere (at exactly, or less than, its direct loss) and mitigated its ''consequential'' loss entirely without bothering the defendant. | ||