Consequential loss: Difference between revisions

Consequential loss (view source)

Revision as of 10:55, 6 December 2019

130 bytes added , 6 December 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,980

edits

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 Not so any more: see below.
-===Indemnities===
+===[[Indemnities]]===
-Pay particular attention to [[indemnities]]. where not [[Well-crafted indemnity|well-crafted]], as many are not, indemnities are oddly susceptible for consequential losses, because [[indemnities]] do not require a [[breach of contract]], and the usual rules of remoteness and foreseeability do not (in theory) apply. Badly constructed indemnities are likely to be treated rather like contractual breaches however, but where an indemnity is very wide (as many are) it is not controversial to exclude liability for consequential and indirect losses, and if your counterparty baulks at this, most likely she doesn’t really understand indemnities. Many lawyers don’t.
+Pay particular attention to [[indemnities]]. Unless [[Well-crafted indemnity|well-crafted]] — and most are not — [[indemnities]] are oddly susceptible to [[consequential loss]] bother, because they do not depend on a [[breach of contract]] for payment, and so the usual rules of [[remoteness]] and [[foreseeability]] do not apply. Courts are likely to treat ''badly'' constructed [[indemnities]] rather like contractual breaches,<ref>But might not — so why take that risk?</ref> but where an [[indemnity]] is very wide (as many are) it is not controversial to exclude consequential and indirect losses from its scope. If your counterparty baulks at this, she’s either a bit of a dick or — more likely — she doesn’t really understand indemnities. (Many lawyers don’t.)
-Trying to recovering [[consequential losses]] for [[breach]] through sneaky [[indemnities]] is dick behaviour, basically, and another reason one should never agree to indemnities for [[breach of contract]].
+In any case trying to recover [[consequential losses]] for [[breach of contract]] through sneaky [[indemnities]] is dick behaviour, basically, and another reason never to agree indemnities for [[breach of contract]].
 ''There is more — much more — on this topic at the [[indemnities]] article.''