What do Consequential Damages Mean?

Consequential damages, as the name suggests, refer to the compensation granted to one party for the harm or loss they experience as a result of a breach of the terms in an agreement. These damages are primarily linked to financial losses suffered by the party, including but not limited to potential profits delayed due to the breach or expenses incurred to address the harm caused by the agreement breach.

One of the essential conditions for claiming consequential damages is that they should be clearly and undoubtedly linked to the breach of the contract, rather than being remotely related. It is necessary for the plaintiff to demonstrate that the pecuniary loss or expenses incurred are a direct consequence of the other party’s breach of the agreement.

 

Important considerations in determination of consequential damages

When determining the extent of consequential damages, several important aspects must be considered:

1. Proximity/Natural ConsequenceThe first step in assessing consequential damages is to establish that the loss being claimed by the plaintiff is a direct result of the contract breach. Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 emphasizes that damages cannot be sought for losses that are remote or indirect.
   To determine proximity, the concept of the remoteness of damages is applied. According to the Indian Contract Act, for damages to be awarded, it is essential that the loss or damage “arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or the parties knew that such loss or damage could reasonably occur at the time of entering into the contract.”
   Consequently, the defendant would not be held responsible for damages that are not closely connected to the breach of the contract. The landmark case of Hadley v. Baxendale provided guidelines for assessing the remoteness of damages. According to this case, a party suffering from a contract breach can only recover damages that can reasonably be considered as naturally arising from the breach, following the usual course of events, or that both parties could have reasonably anticipated as the likely result of the breach when making the contract.
   In summary, consequential damages must be a direct and foreseeable consequence of a contract breach, and damages for remote or indirect losses are generally not recoverable, as established by the Indian Contract Act and the principles outlined in the Hadley v. Baxendale case.

2. Reasonable ContemplationIn order to understand the remoteness of damage, the first thing which is needed to be determined is whether such loss on the event of a breach was contemplated or anticipated by the party while entering into a contract. When the terms of the agreement are formulated the parties envisage the possible/potential outcomes arising out of the breach of contract. If such loss for which the consequential damages are claimed, was genuinely contemplated by both the parties, then the defendant party cannot evade liability to pay consequential damages by saying that such loss was remote or indirect. This is the unique thing about consequential damages, that even after the apprehension of the possibility of such loss, it is not explicitly mentioned in the contract but the claim can be raised for such loss because it seems plausible to seek damages for such loss.

3. TestTo establish the connection between default committed and loss is suffered is the necessary concomitant for claiming damages, the breach has to have the real and effective cause for the loss. So basically, the impact of the breach which transcends actual loss and causes other ancillary damages closely related to the subject matter of contract can be recovered in the name of consequential damages. To ascertain the link between breach and injury, the English Courts introduced the “But For” test. In this test, the court discerns on a simple question, whether the loss would have taken place if it weren’t for the wrongful acts/omission by the defendant. The test was first applied in Reg Glass Pty Ltd v. Rivers Locking Systems Ltd, the defendant did not insert the locks on the doors in accordance with the terms of the agreement, later a robbery took place in the house of the plaintiff. The court held that if it weren’t for the defendant’s failure in putting locks in accordance with the agreement the robbery could have been precluded.

4. The same test of “but for” test was applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a landmark case “but for” test, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had stated that neglect of duty of the defendant to keep the goods insured resulted in a direct loss of claim from the government (there was an ordinance that the government would compensate for damage to property insured wholly or partially at the time of the explosion against fire under a policy covering fire risk). The Supreme Court concluded that “But for the appellants’ neglect of duty to keep the goods insured according to the agreement, they (the respondents) could have recovered the full value of the goods from the government”.