• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
Parry Field Lawyers
  • Home
  • About
    • News
    • Terms of Engagement
  • Our People
  • Services
    • Property
      • Residential
      • Construction
      • Subdivisions
      • Commercial
      • Leasing
    • Advisory
      • Employment
      • Sale & Purchases
      • Financing
      • Governance
      • Technology/IT
      • Capital Raising
    • Disputes
      • Employment
      • Court, Tribunals and Arbitrations
      • Estates & Wills
      • Divorce & Separation
      • Insurance
      • Family
      • Company & Shareholding
      • Debt Collection
      • Construction
    • Trusts & Asset Planning
      • Wills & Enduring Powers of Attorney
      • Estates
      • Succession Planning
    • Charities/For Purpose Organisations
      • Incorporated Societies: Information Hub
      • Charities: Information Hub
      • Faith Based Groups: Information Hub
      • Impact Investing: Information Hub
      • Hybrid Solutions: Charity/Business
      • Not for Profits
      • Churches
      • Sports Groups
      • Social Enterprises/Impact Companies
      • Community Groups
    • Immigration
      • Work Visas
      • Family Visas
      • Skilled Migrants
      • Business and Investment Visas
      • Potentially Prejudicial Information
      • Employer Assistance
      • Overseas Investment
  • Resources
    • Guides
      • Capital Raising Guide
      • Resources for the Incorporated Societies Act 2022
      • Doing Business In New Zealand
      • Start Ups Legal Toolkit
      • Buying & Selling Property
      • Charities In New Zealand
      • Social Enterprises in New Zealand Handbook
      • Family Trusts
      • Death & Estates
      • Churches Handbook
      • COVID-19 Legal Handbook
    • Articles
      • Heat of the moment resignations – do employees need to be given a chance to cool off?
      • The new Incorporated Societies Act 2022: When will the new Act affect my Society?
      • Racial Harassment in the Workplace
      • Built up annual leave – does an employee have to use it?
      • Resources for the Incorporated Societies Act 2022
      • When can a Trustee delegate their powers?
      • Buying your first home: Key issues (a practical guide from a first home buyer)
      • The new Incorporated Societies Act 2022: What it means for your Incorporated Society
      • The Addington Farm: A case study in setting up a Charity
      • The Bright-Line Test
      • Funds that advance charity: How do they work? 
      • What is a LIM?
      • Charity Founders’ Ongoing Relationship With The Charity They Start: Key points to know
    • Templates
      • Terms and Conditions
      • Terms and Conditions Including Software
      • Non-Disclosure Agreement – One Way
      • Non-Disclosure Agreement – Two Way
      • Independent Contractors Agreement
      • Shareholders’ Resolutions – Written resolution
      • Share Transfer
      • Incorporation – First Shareholder Resolutions
      • Incorporation – First Directors’ Resolutions
    • Videos
      • COVID-19 and Commercial Leases
      • Force Majeure” clauses in Contracts and COVID-19
      • Property sale and purchases and COVID-19
      • Seeds Podcast
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Pay Online
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

The ice cream just melted! Excluding claims for Consequential Loss

Business, Claims, Disputes, Sale & Purchase

Consequential loss is a loss that arises as a result of a breach of contract. In contracts, parties often exclude liability for consequential loss which is provided for in an exclusion clause.

If you are entering into negotiations for a contract, it is important that you understand what consequential loss is, when damages can be claimed for consequential loss, and how to effectively exclude liability.

 

A question that arises when dealing with consequential loss is how far you can actually go in claiming damages for a consequential loss? Where do you draw the line?

Say, for example, that Mrs Smith has purchased a freezer for her catering business from Mr Jones, which she has filled with ice cream.  This ice cream is for a stall that she has been running at the local fair for a few years now, and is a favourite for many fair-goers. Unfortunately, the freezer broke the day before the fair causing all of the ice cream to melt and meaning that Mrs Smith cannot serve ice cream at her ice cream stall and would therefore not make any profit. The lack of ice cream at the stall meant that there were a lot of grumpy children, and grumpy children meant grumpy parents which resulted in a lot of backlash on the fair.

The following year, the fair suffered a 50% reduction in attendance as a direct result of the grumpy children and the lack of ice cream, and the organisers then had to cancel the fair in subsequent years and claimed the amounts they lost from poor Mrs Smith.

Mrs Smith now wants to sue Mr Jones in damages for the loss of profit and the amounts claimed by the fair organisers, which were losses resulting from the breaking of the freezer.  But how far can Mrs Jones actually go in claiming these damages?  Let’s look at some cases and see what they say.

Hadley v Baxendale

 

In an 1854 English Court of Exchequer decision Hadley v Baxendale, Alderson B famously established the remoteness test, which is a two-limb approach where the losses must be:

  1. Considered to have arisen naturally (according to the usual course of things); or
  2. Reasonably considered to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time when they made the contract as a probable result of the breach of it.

Alderson B said that in order for a party to successfully claim damages on the grounds of consequential loss, the loss must fall into either of those two categories.

McElroy Milne v Commercial Electronics

 

In 1992 in New Zealand, Cooke P said this test no longer applied in modern law, and he established a multi-factorial discretionary approach in which a range of factors are to be taken into consideration, including foreseeability.

Transfield Shipping v Mercator Shipping (The Achilleas)

 

This is more recent English House of Lords decision concerning the late return of a ship. In this case, the judges established that while Hadley v Baxendale is generally a good approach, there are certain circumstances where it may not necessarily apply.

These judgments create confusion in determining what actually constitutes a consequential loss and where to draw the line.  Generally speaking, however, the loss must have been in the contemplation of the parties for it to amount to a consequential loss.

A way forward: What should the clause say?

 

In our view there are three ways forward:

  1. No exclusion of consequential loss – this means that the parties are leaving it up to the interpretation of the Courts;
  2. Include a general consequential loss clause; or
  3. Incorporate a bespoke clause for the specific contract.

Where possible, we recommend a general exclusion of consequential loss with some examples of specific situations (essentially a bit of both 2 and 3 above).

Other options available:

Remember that a contract is ultimately a give and take from each side and another way that a party can limit liability in a contract is by putting a total cap on their liability.

Another option is that a party could limit liability by stating a time period in which the other party can bring a claim. A small company negotiating with a large multinational will have less scope and a template agreement is much more difficult to get changes made to it.

Ultimately, whichever route is taken depends on the preference of the parties, and their negotiations will also play a role in determining what liability is excluded.

Every situation is unique and how much Mrs Smith could claim for will depend on what the contract said and the circumstances of the situation.  Whatever your scenario, we have a dedicated commercial team at Parry Field Lawyers who can give you personalised advice on all aspects of your business ventures.  This article is also based on a more detailed analysis of the cases mentioned above – contact us if you would like a free copy of that.

 

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Please contact Kris Morrison or Steven Moe at Parry Field Lawyers (348-8480).

https://www.parryfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/AdobeStock_61545894-1024x681.jpg 681 1024 Leigh Gray https://www.parryfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Parry-Field-Lawyers-Logo.png Leigh Gray2018-04-24 16:30:382019-10-17 13:31:16The ice cream just melted! Excluding claims for Consequential Loss

Related Lawyers

Kris Morrison
Email Kris
+6433488480
View Profile
View Profile

Christchurch CBD

PHONE: +64 3 348 8480
FAX: +64 3 348 6305

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
Level 1, 60 Cashel Street
Christchurch 8013, New Zealand

POSTAL ADDRESS:
PO Box 744
Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand

Christchurch

PHONE: +64 3 348 8480
FAX: +64 3 348 6305

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
1 Rimu Street, Riccarton,
Christchurch 8041, New Zealand

POSTAL ADDRESS:
PO Box 8020, Riccarton,
Christchurch, 8440, New Zealand

Rolleston

PHONE: +64 3 348 8480
FAX: +64 3 348 6305

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
Level 1, 80 Rolleston Drive,
Rolleston, 7614, New Zealand

POSTAL ADDRESS:
PO Box 8020, Riccarton,
Christchurch, 8440, New Zealand

Hokitika

PHONE: +64 3 755 8673
FAX: +64 3 755 8073

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
26 Weld Street,
Hokitika 7810, New Zealand

POSTAL ADDRESS:
PO Box 44,
Hokitika 7842, New Zealand

Make an enquiry

Parry Field Charitable Foundation

Parry Field charitable members of NZ LAw, Global Cross Legal and SCLA

70 Years of Excellence logo

© Copyright – Parry Field Lawyers     |     Privacy Policy

What is a Constitution and why might I want one for my Company?Perspectives on Charity Law, Accounting and Regulation in New Zealand –...
Scroll to top