'No Consequential Damages' Clause and Lost Profits

, New York Law Journal

In his Contract Law column for the New York Law Journal, Glen Banks, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright (Fulbright & Jaworski), discusses an opinion in which a sharply divided Court of Appeals ruled that a "no consequential damages" clause in a distribution agreement would not bar a distributor from recovering breach of contract damages for the profit it allegedly would have made reselling the product which was the subject of the agreement. The court reversed a unanimous ruling below that the "no consequential damages" clause limited the distributor's recovery to nominal damages.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via LexisAdvance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Originally appeared in print as 'No Consequential Damages' Clause and Recovery of Lost Profits