82,891
edits
Breach of contract: Difference between revisions
→since Hadley
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
For, had the special circumstances been known, the parties might have specially provided for the breach of contract by special terms as to the damages in that case, and of this advantage it would be very unjust to deprive them. }} | For, had the special circumstances been known, the parties might have specially provided for the breach of contract by special terms as to the damages in that case, and of this advantage it would be very unjust to deprive them. }} | ||
==== | ====Since Hadley==== | ||
A bunch of garlanded cases, some [[Victoria Laundry v Newman - Case Note|involving laundry]] and others [[Koufos v Czarnikow (The Heron II) - Case Note|named after ships]], have drummed out this original dicta. Chitty would summarise these as concluding that a loss is not too remote a consequence of breach if, at the time of contract, the consequence it was within their reasonable contemplation as a not-unlikely result of their breach. | |||
===[[Consequential loss]]=== | ===[[Consequential loss]]=== | ||