Saint Line Limited v Richardsons Westgarth and Co.: 1940

A clause excluding liability for ‘any indirect or consequential damages or claims whatsoever’. A claim was made for for loss of profit.
Held: ‘What does one mean by ‘direct damage’? Direct damage is that which flows naturally from the breach without other intervening causes and independently of special circumstances, while indirect damage does not so flow. The breach certainly has brought it about, but only because of some supervening event or some special circumstances unknown to the seller.
In my judgment, the words ‘indirect or consequential’ do not exclude liability for that which is prima facie recoverable; that is, do not exclude liability for damages which are the direct and natural result of breaches complained of.’

Judges:

Atkinson J

Citations:

[1940] 2 KB 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Feb-2000
Standard Conract – Wide Exclusions, Apply 1977 Act
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages.
Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or . .
CitedBritish Sugar Plc v NEI Power Projects Limited and Anr CA 8-Oct-1997
The plaintiffs contracted for the delivery and installation of equipment by the defendant. After delays and defects the claimants sought damages. The defendants said that the contract provided that any liabiity for consequential losses was to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Damages

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.238574