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

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?