Chapter 8: The “tacit assumption” and consequential damages
AbstractThis chapter defends the “tacit assumption” test for recovery of consequential damages. Critics of the notion ask: “would reasonable people have contemplated the possibility?” The test asks, even if they would have contemplated the possibility, how would reasonable people allocate the risks? The risks are, to some degree, endogenous—both parties contribute to the harm. The relevant question should be to what extent can one party run its business in reliance on the successful performance of the counterparty’s obligation? The widespread use of disclaimers suggests that the risk of consequential damages should typically be assigned to the non-breaching party. The chapter also considers some significant exceptions to that rule.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.