Remoteness of loss Flashcards
What are the two issues in relation to a party does not necessarily obtain the full extent of his or her loss under each heading?
Factual Causation and Remoteness
What is factual causation?
There will be no recovery of a particular type of loss if it was actually caused by something other than the breach.
What is remoteness?
There is no recovery for a loss that is regarded as being too remote. In such a case the breach is not viewed as being the legal cause of the loss in question.
Established through the reasonable contemplation test
How is the remoteness law in contract often expressed?
Parties are liable for the losses that were within their reasonable (objective) contemplation at the time of contracting.
The first main case on the In the case of financial loss, the test laid down in Hadley v Baxendale 1854?
Liable for loss is this was a natural arising issue - mill broken crankshaft delivered late.
What was held in Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries [1949] ?
Not for special circumstances - abnormal loss.
What was held in the case of The Heron (two)?
HL found in favour of claimant - By then the market price of sugar had fallen so when it was sold, the claimant had lost just over £4000 profit. This lost profit was then claimed from the defendant.
What was held in the case of Parsons v Uttley Ingam? - physical damage - pig damage with feeder
Loss of pigs was not too remote. Contract remoteness test should be between financial loss and physical loss.
Balfour Beatty v Scottish Power 1994 - remoteness/foreseeability issue?
Since the electricity company could not have known of this construction method, it was not liable for the cost of demolition and rebuilding.
What was held in the case of Transfield Shipping v Mercator Shipping [2009]?
In breach - ship returned late. Negotiated charter with another party so impacted loss of income. Well established in the shipping industry that if a ship is late the extra days higher must be payed at the market rate.
