Question Description
Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?a)Yes, as it is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.b)No, as it is not reasonably foreseeable.c)No, as it is too remote.d)Both (B) and (C)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?a)Yes, as it is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.b)No, as it is not reasonably foreseeable.c)No, as it is too remote.d)Both (B) and (C)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?a)Yes, as it is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.b)No, as it is not reasonably foreseeable.c)No, as it is too remote.d)Both (B) and (C)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?a)Yes, as it is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.b)No, as it is not reasonably foreseeable.c)No, as it is too remote.d)Both (B) and (C)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?a)Yes, as it is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.b)No, as it is not reasonably foreseeable.c)No, as it is too remote.d)Both (B) and (C)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?a)Yes, as it is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.b)No, as it is not reasonably foreseeable.c)No, as it is too remote.d)Both (B) and (C)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?a)Yes, as it is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.b)No, as it is not reasonably foreseeable.c)No, as it is too remote.d)Both (B) and (C)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?a)Yes, as it is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.b)No, as it is not reasonably foreseeable.c)No, as it is too remote.d)Both (B) and (C)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?a)Yes, as it is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.b)No, as it is not reasonably foreseeable.c)No, as it is too remote.d)Both (B) and (C)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.