UK: Excluding Consequential or Indirect Losses in Software and Outsourcing Contracts Governed by English Law

The Law Commission for England and Wales is expected to publish a long-awaited final report and draft legislation on unfair contract terms later this year. If the ideas expressed in an August 2002 consultation paper are embodied in the draft, this may have important implications for the validity of exclusions of consequential and indirect loss.

Software and outsourcing contracts usually exclude or limit liability for consequential or indirect losses; but, although the words "consequential" and "indirect" suggest the concept has great breadth, encompassing all consequences which are more than a single causal step from a breach, in practice the English courts have strictly limited the scope of such exclusions. Many losses which at first sight could be described as indirect or consequential, and might be treated as such by US judges, will be treated as direct losses by their English counterparts.

This has important implications for both customers and service providers. Because the losses which can result from software failure or defects in performance of services can far exceed their price, service providers will wish to ensure that exclusion clauses do what they want them to do, and that means understanding the English judiciary’s idea of "indirect" ("indirect" and "consequential" are often used interchangeably). Equally, customers will wish to ensure that they are adequately protected against consequences of failure and that certain losses will be recoverable. It is also necessary to have regard to the contra proferentum rule, which provides that exclusion clauses are to be strictly construed against the party which seeks to rely on them.

Definition of Consequential Loss

The legal meaning of "consequential" was first considered in a modern commercial context in Croudace Construction v Cawoods Concrete Product. Cawoods was alleged to have delivered defective concrete blocks to Croudace, and to have delivered them late, causing Croudace additional losses—including loss of productivity, inflation costs, and a claim from a sub-contractor. In respect of these additional losses, Cawoods relied upon a clause in the contract which read:

We are not under any circumstances to be liable for any consequential loss or damage caused or arising by reason of late supply or any fault, failure or defect in any materials or goods supplied by us or by reason of the same not being of the quality or specification ordered or by reason of any other matter whatsoever.

The Court of Appeal, drawing on earlier authorities, ruled that "consequential loss or damage" was that which did not result directly and naturally from the breach complained of. The court was, in effect, aligning the legal meaning of the phrase with the so-called "second limb" of the famous decision in Hadley v Baxendale. In that case Anderson B distinguished between the two kinds of recoverable damages. The first limb covered losses "arising naturally, i.e. according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself", while the second limb covered those losses "such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach." Other kinds of damage are considered "too remote" to be recoverable.

The court in Croudace decided that the losses claimed by Croudace were a direct and natural consequence of the late supply of the concrete blocks by Cawoods, were not consequential, and were thus not caught by the exclusion clause.

This construction of the phrase "consequential loss" was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in British Sugar v NEI Power Products and Another, where it was held that increased production costs and loss of profits were not necessarily examples of consequential loss.

Consequential Loss in Software Contracts

While the meaning of "consequential loss" may be clear in theory, the application of the concept is tricky, especially in more complex contractual situations. This was acknowledged in BHP Petroleum and Others v British Steel and Dalmine. The BHP court stated that in order to decide whether a contract clause excluding "indirect losses or consequential damages" applied, it would have to form a view about what British Steel knew about at the time of entering into the contract, although it had little in the way of evidence to assist.

In Salvage Association v CAP Financial Services the court considered a consequential loss exclusion in the context of a contract for computer software. The Salvage Association had engaged CAP to create and implement an accounting system. The project did not go according to schedule, and when the Salvage Association rejected the software it was nowhere near complete. The judge found as a matter of fact that CAP was not able to perform the contract because it lacked access to the relevant skills and experience and, consequently, that the system CAP had produced was not fit for its intended purpose.

The central legal point in the case concerned the application of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA"), but it also provided a guide to the classification of losses under an exclusion clause differentiating between direct and indirect losses, which read as follows:

CAP shall not be liable for any indirect or consequential losses, damage, injury, costs or expenses of any kind whatsoever including economic loss such as a loss of production, loss of profits or of contracts… 

The Court held that this clause was enforceable, but the clause tumbled headlong into the elephant trap created by the English courts’ narrow definition of indirect and consequential loss. The Court held that, because the other kinds of loss referred to were said to be examples of indirect and consequential loss and not separately listed, the clause was ineffective in excluding direct economic loss.1 The court therefore held that the following losses were direct and recoverable (in addition to the principal claim for wasted expenditure): (a) payments to a third party for use of a bureau facility; (b) wasted computer stationery; (c) payments to consultants; and (d) payments for testing.

Consequential Loss and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Exclusion clauses are also subject to the terms of UCTAand the Misrepresentation Act 1967, and these statutes may also affect the enforceability of exclusions of consequential loss.

In accordance with UCTA, it is standard practice to carve-out from the scope of exclusion clauses both liability for personal injury and death resulting from negligence and losses arising from fraud. However it may be necessary to go further. UCTAprovides that "In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so exclude or restrict his liability for negligence except in so far as the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness." (Negligence is defined as the breach "of any obligation, arising from the express or implied terms of the contract, to take reasonable care or exercise reasonable skill in the performance of the contract" or "of any common law duty to take reasonable care or exercise reasonable skill (but not any stricter duty)" or certain duties relating to occupiers liability.)

An even stricter provision applies in the case of written standard terms of business. In such a case the party on whose terms the agreement is signed may not exclude or restrict any liability with respect to any breach of contract, unless the contract term in question satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. In this regard, the courts take a wide view of what constitutes "standard terms of business."

Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 is also applicable. This provides that terms excluding or restricting liability or remedies in respect of misrepresentations will also be subject to the (same) reasonableness test.

"Reasonableness" is described in the Act as the requirement that the relevant contract term be "a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties at the time when the contract was entered into." Thus the best assessors of reasonableness are usually the parties themselves.

In Salvage Association v CAP Financial Services the judge accepted that in considering reasonableness it was sensible to look at the matters set out in Schedule 2 of UCTA (which the Act says should be used to interpret reasonableness in another context). Schedule 2 lists bargaining power, special inducements, knowledge of the term, conditionality, and whether the goods in question were bespoke. This was applied in St Albans v ICL, where the court found that a clause limiting ICL’s liability to £100,000 was unreasonable. The court made reference to the relative ability of the parties to meet the losses, the level of ICL’s insurance cover, and the strong bargaining position of ICL.

In Watford v Sanderson the court gave consideration to whether a standard term which excluded indirect and consequential loss, and which limited liability in respect of other losses to the contract price, was reasonable. It held that it was. The court referred to the fact that the contract price had been adjusted to take account of the risk allocation, and noted that the other party’s own standard terms contained a similar exclusion.

Drafting Exclusion Clauses in Outsourcing and Software Contracts

The lesson to be drawn from the case law on consequential loss can be simply stated: If you want to exclude a particular type of loss, say so. Do not rely upon a reference to consequential or indirect losses as a "sweeping-up" provision. It follows that before contracts are agreed, the parties ought to consider carefully all the kinds of loss which could arise in relation to the contract. Only then is it possible to properly apportion risk between the parties by the use of an exclusion clause. Suppliers should beware of clauses excluding and limiting liability drafted to describe "loss of profits" as an example of "consequential loss" as loss of profits can, in appropriate circumstances, be direct losses and recoverable unless specifically excluded. On the other hand, customers may wish to include express provisions that certain types of losses, such as amounts paid to third parties and/or internal expenses incurred in correcting errors or obtaining replacement software or services, should be considered as direct losses and not excluded.

Watford v Sanderson provides those relying on clauses excluding consequential loss with some comfort. However, this judgment does not mean that all clauses excluding consequential loss will be reasonable. Reasonableness depends upon the particular circumstances of the contract.

Legislative reform

The law relating to unfair contractual terms may soon be changed, and this could affect the law relating to the enforceability of exclusions and limitations of liability for consequential loss. The Law Commission’s consultation paper on the subject published in August 2002 envisaged a consolidation of the law and, as regards business to business contracts, an exemption from control for terms which are individually negotiated on the one hand, and a generally applicable test of fairness and reasonableness to apply to non-negotiated terms on the other. It remains to be seen whether this idea will be embodied in the final report and accompanying draft legislation which the Commission is expected to publish in the early part of this year.


1. The risks of similar conclusions are also present under the US Uniform Commercial Code and US common law. Conscientious drafters should note the suggestions in this article for drafting contracts which may be enforced under US law. Specifically, precise descriptions of both included and excluded potential damages will provide the least risk. 

Copyright © 2007, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP. and/or Mayer Brown International LLP. This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

Mayer Brown is a combination of two limited liability partnerships: one named Mayer Brown LLP, established in Illinois, USA; and one named Mayer Brown International LLP, incorporated in England.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.