The case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854)9 Ex 341 is authority for the principle that breach of contract entitles a plaintiff to:
A)damages which are a natural consequence of the breach or expressly bought to the attention of the defendant.
B)damages that are a reasonably direct consequence of the breach of contract.
C)damages that are reasonably foreseeable based on the actual or constructive knowledge of the defendant.
D)all of the above.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The case of Hadley v Baxendale established the principle that damages in a breach of contract case should cover losses that are either a natural consequence of the breach or were specifically brought to the attention of the defendant at the time the contract was made. This encompasses damages that are a direct consequence of the breach and those that are reasonably foreseeable, making all the options correct interpretations of the ruling's implications.

The Case of Hadley V Baxendale (1854)9 Ex 341 Is