When is something so remote that nobody could have foreseen it happening, except that bloke in the pub moaning about Martians nicking his Weetabix? Legally speaking, this is a big issue and one that comes up time and again, when claimants seek damages for something that the defendant can’t have been expected to reasonably foresee happening.
The major authority here is Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341, which sets out a two-stage test:
- Loss which arises naturally from the breach will normally be within the reasonable contemplation of the parties.
- Unusual loss will be within the reasonable contemplation of the parties only if the special circumstances which give rise to the loss are known to both parties at the time the contract is made. The other party should be told about the special circumstances before the contract is finalised.
If claimants can show that their claim passes both stages of this test, then however remote their losses might otherwise seem, they will have very good grounds for being successful in the action they are bringing.
So what is likely to be considered unreasonable? Well, in Simkiss v Rhondda Borough Council (1983) 81 LGR 461, a court determined that it was unreasonable for Mr Simkiss to take action against the Council, where he had already decided, even if implicitly, that he accepted his daughter might be hurt when playing on unsafe grounds.
Recontextualise that for the sale of vehicles, and it can be anything from claimants arguing they’d been told they could charge an electric vehicle for 7 pence per kilowatt hour in London, where any reasonable person expects to pay above the odds. Or a claimant buying a vehicle but neglecting to tell the dealer that they intend to immediately take an extended trip across Europe.
Other arguments as to when something is too remote to be validly included in a claim are where a considerable body of time has passed between the point of sale and when the claim is made. With motor vehicles, even taking into account that the law recognises the older a vehicle gets the more likely it is that something will go wrong, there is still scope for a good number of intervening factors. Mileage, again. Driving style. Works by third parties. And so on.
Yet some claimants do argue that even though several years have passed and they’ve driven tens of thousands of miles in these vehicles without incident, the fact that something goes wrong on day 1,831 of their ownership means that something was wrong at the point of sale. They even cite general statistics about the type of vehicle, conveniently ignoring the fact that the circumstances of the dispute will often be particular to the vehicle involved.
All of which means additional hurdles between you and the finishing line. Thankfully, Lawgistics is here to ensure that even if it’s a marathon and not a sprint, you don’t have to run it alone. If you’re facing a “remote loss” argument or a tricky vehicle dispute, our legal team can support you via our telephone helpline and casework service.
Available on all your devices via your web browser or the dedicated MotorDesk desktop and mobile apps.
