Also known as: foreseeable harm · foreseeability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle that limits liability or recovery of damages to those harms that a party had reason to anticipate as a probable result of its conduct or breach at the time of the relevant act or agreement.
Felicity French purchased a vehicle from a dealer in State X. The manufacturer had no offices, advertising, or sales efforts in State Y. After an accident in State Y, Felicity sued the manufacturer there. The court declined jurisdiction because the manufacturer had not purposefully directed any activities toward State Y even though it knew some vehicles might reach that state through consumer travel.
Fusion Power contracted with Francois Fortier to supply jet fuel at fixed prices for a fleet of aircraft. When supply was interrupted, Fusion Power claimed lost profits from canceled routes that Fortier had never been told about during negotiations. The court denied those profits because Fortier lacked reason to foresee the specific route cancellations at contracting.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Fidelity Trust agreed to supply aluminum to Ferrum Metals under a long-term contract containing an escalation formula. When market prices surged far beyond the formula, Ferrum Metals refused to pay the higher amounts. The court enforced the formula because the parties had allocated the risk of price changes and could not later claim unforeseeable escalation as a defense.
Felicia Fuentes hired an attorney to draft a will leaving her estate to her nieces. The attorney used language that failed to avoid a tax that the nieces later had to pay. The nieces sued the attorney. The court held the attorney liable because harm to intended beneficiaries from negligent drafting was a foreseeable result of the engagement.
Fulton Shipping chartered vessels equipped with turbines manufactured by a supplier. The turbines failed at sea, causing repair costs and lost charter revenue. Fulton Shipping sued the supplier in tort. The court barred recovery because the only losses were economic and the parties had allocated such risks through their contract rather than tort law.
Felipe Figueroa contracted with Fatima Flores to ship goods from the United States to the Middle East via the Suez Canal at a set rate. When the canal closed, Felipe claimed the closure made performance commercially impracticable. The court rejected the defense because the parties could have foreseen an alternative route around the Cape and allocated that risk in the contract.
Foreseeability asks whether the breaching party had reason to know the loss would probably occur at the time of contracting. Certainty asks whether the amount of loss can be proved with reasonable evidence rather than speculation. Both must be satisfied for recovery of consequential damages.
Supporting sources
No. Foreseeability that a product could travel into the forum is insufficient without purposeful availment of that state's market or legal protections by the defendant.
Supporting sources
A loss is foreseeable if the breaching party had reason to know at contracting of particular needs or circumstances beyond ordinary consequences that made the loss probable. Disclosure during negotiations satisfies this requirement even without quantifying the exact amount.
Supporting sources
…result of the breach. In a warranty action where the loss is purely economic, the limitation derives from the requirements of foreseeability and of privity, which is still generally enforced for such claims in a commercial setting. In products-liability law, where there is a duty to the public generally, foreseeability is an…