The contract provided that the seller would make good certain defects in workmanship, but the sellers stated: ‘We do not give any other guarantee and we do not accept responsibility for consequential damages.’
Held: The purchaser recovered the deposit paid towards the price of a machine prior to delivery and also a further sum paid for the supply of a replacement machine at short notice. Maugham LJ said: ‘On the question of damages, the word ‘consequential’ had come to mean ‘not direct’, but damages recovered by the Defendants on the Counterclaim arose directly from the Plaintiffs’ breach of contract under section 51(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893.’ Roche LJ agreed, saying: ‘the damages recovered by the defendants on the counterclaim are not merely ‘consequential’ but resulted directly and naturally from the plaintiffs’ breach of contract.’
The contract provided for the sellers that ‘We do not give any other guarantee and we do not accept responsibility for consequential damages.’ The machinery was not delivered on time and the purchaser sought recovery of his deposit.
Held: The purchaser recovered his deposit together with a further sum he had paid for the supply of a replacement machine at short notice. The plaintiffs’ right to recover those damages was unaffected by the wording of the contract. Maugham LJ said: ‘On the question of damages, the word ‘consequential’ had come to mean ‘not direct’, but damages recovered by the Defendants on the Counterclaim arose directly from the Plaintiffs’ breach of contract under section 51(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893.’
Roche LJ said that the damages recovered by the defendants on the counterclaim are not merely ‘consequential’ but resulted directly and naturally from the plaintiffs’ breach of contract.
Maugham LJ, Roche LJ
(1935) 40 Com Cas 204
Sale of Goods Act 1893 51(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Croudace Construction Limited v Cawoods CA 1978
A clause in a contract provided that: ‘We are not under any circumstances to be liable for any consequential loss or damage caused or arising by reason of late supply or any fault, failure or defect in any material or goods supplied by us or by . .
Cited – Pegler 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 . .
Cited – Croudace Construction Limited v Cawoods CA 1978
A clause in a contract provided that: ‘We are not under any circumstances to be liable for any consequential loss or damage caused or arising by reason of late supply or any fault, failure or defect in any material or goods supplied by us or by . .
Cited – British 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.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.238573 br>