82,853
edits
Consequential loss: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
In this case it would be clearly contemplated that the failure to deliver the taxi would lead to a loss of income, and provided that loss could be sensibly quantified (a different question) it would quite conceivably be covered. | In this case it would be clearly contemplated that the failure to deliver the taxi would lead to a loss of income, and provided that loss could be sensibly quantified (a different question) it would quite conceivably be covered. | ||
Explicitly seeking indemnification for [[damages]] that ''may'' not be covered by ordinary remoteness principles risks creating an argument, where before there was none, and winding up in a worse position that you otherwise would be. “Consequential” losses ''may'' be recoverable in contract as long as they are reasonably foreseeable and in contemplation of the parties, which may well be true in the case of hedging losses and the like. But if you specifically seek to include consequential losses, the Skinnerian | Explicitly seeking indemnification for [[damages]] that ''may'' not be covered by ordinary remoteness principles risks creating an argument, where before there was none, and winding up in a worse position that you otherwise would be. “Consequential” losses ''may'' be recoverable in contract as long as they are reasonably foreseeable and in contemplation of the parties, which may well be true in the case of hedging losses and the like. But if you specifically seek to include [[consequential losses]], the Skinnerian response of most lawyers is to reject it out of hand. If you sought an [[indemnity]] just for ordinary contractual losses, you might be able to include sufficiently foreseeable consequential losses. | ||
===See Also=== | ===See Also=== | ||