n South African Law Journal - Remoteness in contract : under revision in the House of Lords too? : notes
|Article Title||Remoteness in contract : under revision in the House of Lords too? : notes|
|© Publisher:||Juta Law Publishing|
|Journal||South African Law Journal|
|Affiliations||1 University of Cape Town|
|Publication Date||Jan 2012|
|Pages||199 - 209|
Liability for consequential losses in the law of contract has traditionally been limited by a peculiar contractual view of legal causation, or remoteness. Hence while a particular breach of contract may be the factual ('but for') cause of a particular item of damage, that item may be deemed to be too remote to warrant a claim for compensation. The traditional test used in the remoteness inquiry was adopted by the Appellate Division in Lavery & Co Ltd v Jungheinrich 1931 AD 156 (see further the less expansive adoption of a contemplation principle with regard to damages in Victoria Falls and Transvaal Power Co Ltd v Consolidated Langlaagte Mines Ltd 1915 AD 1 at 22). In the main judgment given in Lavery, Curlewis JA imported the English law approach to remoteness, the so-called 'rule in Hadley v Baxendale' ((1854) 9 Exch 341. This rule was adopted in Lavery supra by Curlewis JA at 162-4 and by Wessels JA (for the majority) at 174).
Article metrics loading...