'No Consequential Damages' Clause and Lost Profits

, New York Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

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This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® 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 lexis.com® and Nexis®. 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Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.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

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1396003378839

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.