What is the test for recoverable damages under the objective doctrine?

Saskatchewan, Canada


The following excerpt is from Premium Grain & Seed Ltd. v. Finora Canada Ltd., 1999 CanLII 12667 (SK QB):

Where the objective doctrine is involved, before damage is properly treated as recoverable under Hadley v. Baxendale, supra, it must have been the direct, physical result or consequence of the breach of contract that is in question. Direct damage is that which flows naturally from the breach without other intervening cause and independently of special circumstances, while indirect damages does not so flow. It must be shown that it was the infestation, and not some other intervening factor which caused the loss. Here the question is: Were the fumigation expenditures a foreseeable consequence of the breach and therefore recoverable?

Other Questions


What is the test for recoverable damages under the doctrine of unjust enrichment? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Is a child entitled to damages under the doctrine of common law damages under which they are not entitled? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the test for recoverable damages under mistake of fact? (Alberta, Canada)
Can Section 7 of The Criminal Code of Canada be used to support a claim for damages under the paramountcy doctrine? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Is a plaintiff entitled to damages under the Crumbling skull doctrine? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for recoverable damages under unjust enrichment? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for recoverable damages under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the legal test for damages under damages under section 5(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure? (British Columbia, Canada)
When will the court grant relief under the Fletcher doctrine under the Rylands v. Fletcher doctrine? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for a claim for an easement based on prescription under limitation statute or under the doctrine of lost grant? (Ontario, Canada)