82,891
edits
Consequential loss: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
{{casenote|Hadley|Baxendale}} | {{casenote|Hadley|Baxendale}} | ||
*[[Indemnity]] | *[[Indemnity]] | ||