Proof of Causation - Texas, Common Law, and UCC

Question 1

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing contract damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the dominant cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 1

False

Question 2

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing contract damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the cause in fact of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 2

True

Question 3

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing contract damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the efficient cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 3

False

Question 4

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing contract damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the legal cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 4

True

Question 5

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing contract damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was a concurrent cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 5

False

Question 6

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing contract damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the efficient dominant cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 6

False

Question 7

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing contract damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the efficient proximate cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 7

False

Question 8

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing contract damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the proximate cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 8

True

Question 9

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing consequential damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the proximate cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 9

True

Question 10

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing consequential damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the efficient cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 10

False

Question 11

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing consequential damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was a concurrent cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 11

False

Question 12

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing consequential damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the dominant cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 12

False

Question 13

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing consequential damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the efficient proximate cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 13

False

Question 14

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing liquidated damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the cause in fact of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 14

True

Question 15

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing liquidated damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the predominate cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 15

False

Question 16

Generally, under Hadley v. Baxendale and before securing liquidated damages, a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the proximate cause of the buyer’s losses.

Answer 16

True

Question 17

Generally, under Article 2 of the UCC, a buyer must always prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the predominate cause of the buyer’s incidental damages.

Answer 17

False

Question 18

Generally, under Article 2 of the UCC, a buyer must always prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the proximate cause of the buyer’s loss.

Answer 18

False

Question 19

Generally, under Article 2 of the UCC, a buyer must always prove that a seller’s breach of a warranty was the dominant efficient cause of the buyer’s consequential damages.

Answer 19

False

Question 20

Generally, under the UCC § 2-715(2)(b), a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of an implied warranty was the proximate cause of the buyer’s consequential damages.

Answer 20

True

Question 21

Generally, under the UCC § 2-715(2)(b), a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of an express warranty was the producing cause of the buyer’s consequential damages.

Answer 21

False

Question 22

Generally, under the UCC § 2-608(1)(a), a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a sales contract was the proximate cause of the loss.

Answer 22

False

Question 23

Generally, under the UCC § 2-608(1)(a), a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a shipment contract was the dominant efficient cause of the buyer’s damages.

Answer 23

False

Question 24

Generally, under the UCC § 2-608(1)(a), a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a destination contract was the proximate cause of the buyer’s damages.

Answer 24

False

Question 25

Generally, under the UCC § 2-608(1)(a), a buyer must prove that a seller’s breach of a shipment contract was the producing cause of the buyer’s damages.

Answer 25

False