82,465
edits
Consequential loss: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
On the other hand, 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. | On the other hand, 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. | ||
===Example - the [[confidentiality agreement]]=== | |||
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 likely to be all of a consequential and highly speculative nature | |||
===[[Remoteness of damage]]=== | ===[[Remoteness of damage]]=== | ||
It is sometimes, erroneously, said that [[consequential loss]] is not recoverable under ordinary [[contractual damages]] principles. The test of “[[remoteness of damage]]” is “[[foreseeability]]”—or “what was in the reasonable contemplation of the parties”. Now it is true that in many cases [[consequential loss]] is ''not'' in the reasonable contemplation of the parties. But this is not necessarily so: sometimes it is, as the example above points up quite nicely: | It is sometimes, erroneously, said that [[consequential loss]] is not recoverable under ordinary [[contractual damages]] principles. The test of “[[remoteness of damage]]” is “[[foreseeability]]”—or “what was in the reasonable contemplation of the parties”. Now it is true that in many cases [[consequential loss]] is ''not'' in the reasonable contemplation of the parties. But this is not necessarily so: sometimes it is, as the example above points up quite nicely: | ||