Remoteness - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 08:46, 24 November 2020

2020-11-24T08:46:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:46, 24 November 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:
	For more information, see [[Measure_of_damages_for_construction_contracts#Koufos_v_Czarnikow_Ltd_.28The_Heron_II.29\|Heron II]].		For more information, see [[Measure_of_damages_for_construction_contracts#Koufos_v_Czarnikow_Ltd_.28The_Heron_II.29\|Heron II]].

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =
−		+
−	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===	+

	* Breach of contract.		* Breach of contract.
Line 25:		Line 23:
	* Unliquidated damages.		* Unliquidated damages.

−	[[Category:~~Case_law~~]] [[Category:~~DCN_Case_Law~~]] [[Category:Property_law]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]]

Designing Buildings at 14:46, 21 February 2018

2018-02-21T14:46:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:46, 21 February 2018
Line 7:		Line 7:
	In contract, the test for remoteness was described in the case of Hadley v Baxendale [1854] and falls into two parts – firstly, the knowledge of what happens ‘in the ordinary course of things’; and secondly, actual knowledge of special or unusual circumstances outside the ‘ordinary course of things’. For more information, see Hadley v Baxendale.		In contract, the test for remoteness was described in the case of Hadley v Baxendale [1854] and falls into two parts – firstly, the knowledge of what happens ‘in the ordinary course of things’; and secondly, actual knowledge of special or unusual circumstances outside the ‘ordinary course of things’. For more information, see Hadley v Baxendale.

−	In tort, the test is whether the kind of damage incurred was reasonably foreseeable at the time on the part of the defendant. For more information, see [[Measure_of_damages_for_construction_contracts#Koufos_v_Czarnikow_Ltd_.28The_Heron_II.29\|Heron II]].	+	In tort, the test is whether the kind of damage incurred was reasonably foreseeable at the time on the part of the defendant.
		+
		+	For more information, see [[Measure_of_damages_for_construction_contracts#Koufos_v_Czarnikow_Ltd_.28The_Heron_II.29\|Heron II]].

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =
Line 23:		Line 25:
	* Unliquidated damages.		* Unliquidated damages.

−	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]]	+	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:Property_law]]

Designing Buildings at 14:45, 21 February 2018

2018-02-21T14:45:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:45, 21 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In law, the term ‘remoteness’ refers to the test of causation which is used to determine the type of loss caused by a breach of contract~~. A claim for damages can only succeed if the damage is, in law, not too remote~~.	+	In law, the term ‘remoteness’ refers to the test of causation which is used to determine the type of loss caused by a breach of contract.

−	~~The claimant must have taken all reasonable steps to mitigate their loss. If at~~ the ~~time of the contract, the parties ought reasonably to have foreseen that the loss would be likely to occur, then~~ damage is not too remote. Damage which is too remote is not recoverable, even if there is ~~factual~~ causation between the breach of contract and the loss.	+	A claim for damages can only succeed if the damage is not too remote. Damage which is too remote is not recoverable, even if there is there is clear causation between the breach of contract and the loss.

−	In contract, the ~~basic rule as~~ to ~~remoteness is set out in Hadley v Baxendale [1854]. The knowledge~~ that ~~is considered when testing~~ the ~~remoteness of~~ the damage falls under two limbs – firstly, the knowledge of what happens ‘in the ordinary course of things’; and secondly, actual knowledge of special or unusual circumstances outside the ‘ordinary course of things’ that was communicated between the parties.	+	If, at the time the contract was entered into, the parties ought reasonably to have been able to foresee that the loss would be likely to occur, then the damage is not too remote.

−	For more information, see Hadley v Baxendale.	+	In contract, the test for remoteness was described in the case of Hadley v Baxendale [1854] and falls into two parts – firstly, the knowledge of what happens ‘in the ordinary course of things’; and secondly, actual knowledge of special or unusual circumstances outside the ‘ordinary course of things’. For more information, see Hadley v Baxendale.

−	In tort~~, such as negligence and nuisance~~, the ~~remoteness~~ test is whether the kind of damage incurred was reasonably foreseeable at the time on the part of the defendant.	+	In tort, the test is whether the kind of damage incurred was reasonably foreseeable at the time on the part of the defendant. For more information, see [[Measure_of_damages_for_construction_contracts#Koufos_v_Czarnikow_Ltd_.28The_Heron_II.29\|Heron II]].
−		+
−	For more information, see [[Measure_of_damages_for_construction_contracts#Koufos_v_Czarnikow_Ltd_.28The_Heron_II.29\|Heron II]].	+

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =

Editor at 12:50, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T12:50:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:50, 19 February 2018
Line 9:		Line 9:
	In tort, such as negligence and nuisance, the remoteness test is whether the kind of damage incurred was reasonably foreseeable at the time on the part of the defendant.		In tort, such as negligence and nuisance, the remoteness test is whether the kind of damage incurred was reasonably foreseeable at the time on the part of the defendant.

−	For more information, see Heron II.	+	For more information, see [[Measure_of_damages_for_construction_contracts#Koufos_v_Czarnikow_Ltd_.28The_Heron_II.29\|Heron II]].

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =

Editor: Created page with "In law, the term ‘remoteness’ refers to the test of causation which is used to determine the type of loss caused by a breach of contract. A claim for damages can only succeed..."

2018-02-19T12:49:55Z

Created page with "In law, the term ‘remoteness’ refers to the test of causation which is used to determine the type of loss caused by a breach of contract. A claim for damages can only succeed..."

New page

In law, the term ‘remoteness’ refers to the test of causation which is used to determine the type of loss caused by a breach of contract. A claim for damages can only succeed if the damage is, in law, not too remote.

The claimant must have taken all reasonable steps to mitigate their loss. If at the time of the contract, the parties ought reasonably to have foreseen that the loss would be likely to occur, then damage is not too remote. Damage which is too remote is not recoverable, even if there is factual causation between the breach of contract and the loss.

In contract, the basic rule as to remoteness is set out in Hadley v Baxendale [1854]. The knowledge that is considered when testing the remoteness of the damage falls under two limbs – firstly, the knowledge of what happens ‘in the ordinary course of things’; and secondly, actual knowledge of special or unusual circumstances outside the ‘ordinary course of things’ that was communicated between the parties.

For more information, see Hadley v Baxendale.

In tort, such as negligence and nuisance, the remoteness test is whether the kind of damage incurred was reasonably foreseeable at the time on the part of the defendant.

For more information, see Heron II.

= Find out more =

=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===

* Breach of contract.
* Causation.
* Contract v tort.
* Damages.
* Liquidated damages.
* Measure of damages.
* Mitigation of loss.
* Relevant event.
* Unliquidated damages.

[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]]