header-logo header-logo

13 November 2008
Issue: 7345 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

An uncertain art

Who should bear the risk of market volatility? Ian Gascoigne reports

“Always expect the unexpected.” Perhaps this is a good lesson for life, especially in these turbulent times in the financial world, but it is not something a contract breaker is required to do. He is required only to expect what it is reasonable to anticipate will happen as a consequence of his failure to perform his agreement. He does not have to engage in speculation about something which could happen if it is not likely to do so. Therefore, a victim of contract breach may suffer losses which he cannot recover because their occurrence cannot be said to be probable from the outset.

Without any variation in a particular contract, this principle requires a party in breach to pay the bill arising from the consequences of what the parties reasonably contemplated as the probable result of breach, at the time they made their agreement. The ambit is to be assessed either objectively, or as a result of special circumstances which are known to both parties when they made their contract. If drawing the line between probable

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll