Consequential loss: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
Had I not been committed to rent you my car, I could have rented it to someone else ''for more money''.
Had I not been committed to rent you my car, I could have rented it to someone else ''for more money''.
*'''[[Direct loss]]''': is the rental income you were supposed to pay me for the rental period. It is predictable, finite, determinate and easy the parties to hold in contemplation. “If I can’t go through with this the worst I can be stuck with is the cost of renting that car for a week.  
*'''[[Direct loss]]''': is the rental income you were supposed to pay me for the rental period. It is predictable, finite, determinate and easy the parties to hold in contemplation. “If I can’t go through with this the worst I can be stuck with is the cost of renting that car for a week.  
*'''[[Consequential loss]]''': the marginal extra income I could have earned had I not rented you the car at all, but rented it do someone else who was prepared to pay more for it. This is generally harder to get your head around. “Well, I was planning to be a free-lance limo driver, and I was going to worked non-stop, twenty-four hours a day for the whole period, only driving punters who were paying me £20 pounds a mile”. Almost everything about this is speculative, including what the claimant was planning to do with the car in the first place. It could have rented a car elsewhere (at exactly, or less than, its direct loss) and mitigated its ''consequential'' loss entirely without bothering the party in breach.
*'''[[Consequential loss]]''': the marginal extra income I could have earned had I not rented you the car at all, but rented it to someone else who was prepared to pay more for it. Or the money I could have made with the car, had you performed your contract and rented it to me. This is generally harder to get your head around. “Well, I was planning to be a free-lance limo driver, and I was going to worked non-stop, twenty-four hours a day for the whole period, only driving punters who were paying me £20 pounds a mile”. Almost everything about this is speculative, including what the claimant was planning to do with the car in the first place. It could have rented a car elsewhere (at exactly, or less than, its direct loss) and mitigated its ''consequential'' loss entirely without bothering the party in breach.


In the old days, there was some authority that [[consequential loss]] was not recoverable at all, unless specifically agreed. These days, the extent of [[damages]] are guided generally by the usual rules regarding foreseeability, [[causation]] and [[remoteness of damage]], but in most cases, [[consequential loss]] will fail these tests—especially foreseeability—and are unlikely to be recoverable in an ordinary action for [[breach of contract]], at least in the absence of an [[indemnity]].
In the old days, there was some authority that [[consequential loss]] was not recoverable at all, unless specifically agreed. These days, the extent of [[damages]] are guided generally by the usual rules regarding foreseeability, [[causation]] and [[remoteness of damage]], but in most cases, [[consequential loss]] will fail these tests—especially foreseeability—and are unlikely to be recoverable in an ordinary action for [[breach of contract]], at least in the absence of an [[indemnity]].