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 [ case ], 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).
Answer
Supershield v Siemens
Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
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 [ case ], 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).
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
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 [ case ], 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).
Answer
Supershield v Siemens
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it ct-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 <span>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 t
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.