Of course, in both South Australia and Transfield Shipping, the effect of bringing in the commercial background is to reduce the contract-breaker's liability for consequential loss below the level that the standard rule in Hadley v Baxendale would recognise. In these cases, the new contextual (and 'assumption of responsibility') approach is 'exclusionary'. By contrast, in Supershield v Siemens, the question is whether the new approach may also operate with 'inclusionary' effect, opening up the contract-breaker's liability beyond what Hadley v Baxendale would recognise. To this, Toulson LJ confirmed that 'the same principle may have an inclusionary effect. If, on the proper analysis of the contract against its commercial background, the loss was within the scope of the duty, it cannot be regarded as too remote, even if it would not have occurred in ordinary circumstances' (para 43). On the facts, it was not strictly necessary for Siemens to show more than that the terms of its settlement with the upstream claimants was within the bandwidth of reasonableness. However, Toulson LJ made it clear that he regarded the loss that eventuated – even though unlikely because both the valve and the drains failed – as falling within the responsibility assumed by Siemens to the upstream contractors and by Supershield to Siemens. Certainly, as Toulson LJ remarked, 'it would be a perverse result if the greater the number of precautionary measures, the less the legal remedy available to the victim in the case of multiple failures' (para 44).