header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 April 2024 / C Haward Soper
Issue: 8066 / Categories: Features , Profession , Contract , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Consequential loss: searching for the meaning

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
167816
What’s the true meaning of ‘consequential loss’? C Haward Soper consults the case law—and that other authoritative source, ChatGPT…
  • Considers what commercial professionals mean by the term ‘consequential loss’ and provides a summary of relevant case law.
  • Compares these definitions with those given as a result of entering prompts into ChatGPT, showing that AI’s usefulness in this area is limited for now.

All contract professionals will be aware of—and perhaps scared of—consequential loss. It’s a matter of interest to any lawyer engaged in the drafting of indemnities or exclusion clauses, whether in general commercial contracts or in mergers and acquisitions.

To help clarify the meaning of the term, I have consulted the relevant case law—and enlisted the help of an expert, ChatGPT, for advice. According to CBS News, one lawyer used ChatGPT last year to prepare for a court hearing. It went horribly awry, with ChatGPT inventing ‘court cases that didn’t exist’. My experiments in AI also show that its usefulness is limited.

Precise limitation

Why

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Speechlive LogoClick to know more
Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

Twenty Essex—Thomas Hibbs, Jack Hollingworth & Sam Pearce

Twenty Essex—Thomas Hibbs, Jack Hollingworth & Sam Pearce

Three new tenants join Twenty Essex

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Employment law’s four-point check
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
NLJ this week: Privacy meets the courtroom
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
NLJ this week: Auditors tighten the disclosure screws
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
NLJ this week: Telecoms tenants caught in a legal gap
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
NLJ this week: Due process holds the line

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll