Connell, A and Mason, J (2014) Isn't all loss consequential? A review of recent case law and its relevance to contractual practices within the built environment. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
The term Òconsequential lossÓ frequently arises during contract negotiations in the context where one party is seeking to limit their liability should they subsequently breach that contract. Parties may have different understandings of the term and typically an exclusion clause will not solely relate to consequential loss, but will also include other heads of losses for which the party will not be liable for, such as loss of profit, loss of revenue and loss of business. The question emerges as to whether the term consequential loss has a definitive legal meaning in its own right. This study seeks to ascertain the definition of the term consequential loss within the construction industry through a review of the legal position regarding liability for breach of contract and consequential loss through the consideration of the case law relating to this topic and the associated secondary sources of information. The study concludes by elucidating a clear interpretation of the term consequential loss when used in contract law.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract law; consequential loss; damages; exclusion clause |
| Index terms: | case law, construction industry, consequential loss, built environment, contract negotiation, revenue, damages, profit, meaning, liability, contract law, breach of contract |
| Subjects: | contract law, contract management, sociology, liability law, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, dispute resolution, economic analysis, legal systems |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Contract Administration, Legal Issues, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here