Contracts Update: Consequential Loss: It's All In The Definition

more+
less-

Recent developments in NSW reinforce the importance of not only expressly defining the term 'consequential loss' in contracts, but also carefully considering what categories of losses the exclusion is intended to cover, in order to avoid unintended consequences.

Recent Historical Context -

Until recently it was generally accepted by parties to contracts, and the courts in Australia, that the term 'consequential loss' meant those losses falling under the second limb of losses described in Hadley v Baxendale and which Lord Alderson B categorised as Indirect Loss (or subjectively foreseeable loss).

These Indirect Losses were held to be losses which are not a direct consequence of the breach, and were therefore not fairly and reasonably considered as "arising naturally" or "in the usual course of things", from the breach itself. As such, "consequential loss" was not found to encompass damages for loss of profits or expenses incurred to remedy a breach of contract as these were considered outside of that definition...

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  Australia, Commercial Contracts, Consequential Damages Clause, Contracts Clause

Published In: Civil Remedies Updates, General Business Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© DLA Piper | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »