What is the test for ABOPAC's claim that the shipping arrangements required that the Atlantis Two proceed at all convenient speed, but neither set a firm delivery date or contemplated the cost of an alternative supply?

One challenge to ABOPAC's claim was that the original shipping arrangements merely required that the Atlantis Two proceed with all convenient speed, but neither set a firm delivery date nor contemplated the cost of an alternative supply were the shipping arrangements breached. Here counsel, who challenged this portion of the claim, referred to the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), 9 Ex.Ch. 341, 156 E.R. 145. The rule, set out at page 151 of the English Reports is that:

The rule in Hadley v. Baxendale lays down two circumstances in which damages for breach of contract are recoverable. First, when damages arise naturally, in the usual course of things, from the breach and second, when damages have been reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time they made the contract, as a probable result of a breach. This seeming dichotomy has been modified and explained somewhat over the years.