39:
172:
in that the term "foreseeability" was employed. He emphasised that he would use the words ‘not unlikely’ as denoting a degree of probability considerably less than an even chance but nevertheless not very unusual and easily foreseeable. He emphasised that the tests in tort and contract were very
161:
The House of Lords held that the loss was not too remote. They stated that the test for remoteness in contract is narrower than it is in tort. While in tort any damage of a type which is reasonably foreseeable can be claimed, Lord Reid ruled that, in contract, the defendant must ought to have
173:
different, on the basis that where there is a contract the parties will have had the opportunity to apportion their liabilities already. Therefore, the test for remoteness should be less generous than in tort, where consequential losses must be very remote to preclude compensation.
153:. It was nine days late. The sugar price had dropped from £32 10s to £31 2s 9d. Koufos claimed the difference in the loss of profit. Czarnikow knew there was a sugar market, but not that Koufos intended to sell it straight away.
162:
realised that the loss was 'not unlikely to result from the breach of contract'. A higher degree of probability is needed for the loss to be in the contemplation of the parties. Lord Reid disapproved of
193:
209:
201:
163:
86:
263:
253:
248:
258:
17:
176:
Lord Morris, Lord Hodson, Lord Pearce and Lord Upjohn were generally approving of
Asquith LJ’s language.
168:
82:
130:
8:
186:
137:" test, as a limit to liability, is, in contract, more restrictive than it is in tort.
134:
110:
242:
217:
146:
133:
case, concerning remoteness of damage. The House of Lords held that the "
98:
94:
90:
38:
150:
44:
72:
1 AC 350, 3 WLR 1491, 3 All ER 686, 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555
194:
Victoria
Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd
202:
Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd
210:
South
Australia Asset Management Co v York Montague
240:
145:Koufos chartered a ship (the Heron II) from
37:
14:
241:
47:. Heron II arrived there 9 days late.
24:
25:
275:
149:to bring 3,000 tons of sugar to
264:1967 in United Kingdom case law
254:English implied terms case law
13:
1:
230:
7:
179:
156:
10:
280:
169:Victoria Laundry v Newman
109:
104:
81:
76:
68:
60:
52:
36:
31:
225:
140:
120:C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos
249:English remedy case law
259:House of Lords cases
131:English contract law
187:Hadley v Baxendale
116:
115:
16:(Redirected from
271:
41:
29:
28:
21:
279:
278:
274:
273:
272:
270:
269:
268:
239:
238:
233:
228:
182:
166:’s judgment in
159:
143:
129:1 AC 350 is an
64:17 October 1967
48:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
277:
267:
266:
261:
256:
251:
237:
236:
232:
229:
227:
224:
223:
222:
214:
206:
198:
190:
181:
178:
158:
155:
142:
139:
114:
113:
107:
106:
102:
101:
79:
78:
74:
73:
70:
66:
65:
62:
58:
57:
56:House of Lords
54:
50:
49:
42:
34:
33:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
276:
265:
262:
260:
257:
255:
252:
250:
247:
246:
244:
235:
234:
220:
219:
218:The Achilleas
215:
212:
211:
207:
204:
203:
199:
196:
195:
191:
189:
188:
184:
183:
177:
174:
171:
170:
165:
154:
152:
148:
138:
136:
132:
128:
127:
122:
121:
112:
108:
103:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
77:Case opinions
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
46:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
216:
213:3 All ER 365
208:
200:
192:
185:
175:
167:
160:
144:
126:The Heron II
125:
124:
119:
118:
117:
32:The Heron II
26:
18:The Heron II
99:Lord Upjohn
95:Lord Pearce
91:Lord Hodson
87:Lord Morris
243:Categories
231:References
164:Asquith LJ
135:remoteness
111:Remoteness
147:Czarnikow
83:Lord Reid
205:1 QB 791
197:2 KB 528
180:See also
157:Judgment
105:Keywords
69:Citation
43:Port of
221:UKHL 48
61:Decided
226:Notes
151:Basra
141:Facts
53:Court
45:Basra
97:and
123:or
245::
93:,
89:,
85:,
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
