Source: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/chapter/1151600/compensatory-damages-principles-in-civil-and-common-law-jurisdictions-%E2%80%93-requirements-underlying-principles-and-limits
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:02:01+00:00

Document:
This chapter will provide a comparative overview of the legal principles and elements of compensatory damages in civil-law and common-law jurisdictions, with a focus on contractual damages. There are several reasons why such a comparative analysis is important for international arbitration practitioners. It is common for disputes underlying international arbitrations to be governed by a range of applicable national laws, so it is important to be familiar with the broad principles of their substantive content – or, at least, of two of the main legal traditions,5 though the differences among national laws within those traditions should not be underestimated. While there is certainly a lot of common ground in relation to the legal principles and elements of compensatory damages claims in common- and civil-law jurisdictions, there are also differences, as described in more detail in the sections below. As advocates, it can be useful to be attuned to these differences when formulating written or oral pleadings, particularly where the arbitral tribunal is of mixed legal backgrounds.
While certainly less prevalent than national laws in international arbitration, transnational principles can also play a role in damages analyses in international arbitration, either where parties have agreed to apply them or where tribunals have cited them as a means of reinforcing or supplementing the applicable law.6 These principles may be influential even where not directly applicable and include, for example, those codified in instruments such as the 2010 UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (the UNIDROIT Principles), which ‘reflect concepts to be found in many, if not all, legal systems’.7 Understanding the origin of these transnational principles is important preparation for their application.
As a final note, arbitration clauses sometimes contain broadly worded consents to arbitration that may be interpreted to include non-contractual (i.e., tortious or delictual) claims.8 However, the focus of this chapter will be on compensatory damages arising out of contractual claims. In addition, we do not consider non-compensatory damages, damages principles under the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), contractual limitations on damages, damages in investment arbitration, interest and costs. These topics are addressed in other chapters of this publication.
The law applicable to damages can have a significant impact on the assessment of damages, as the law determines the conditions under which damages may be obtained and the categories of damages available, and provides guidance regarding the amount of damages to be awarded.
The parties’ agreement is paramount in international arbitration. In the absence of a statement to the contrary, the right to damages, the categories and the amount of damages recoverable, and the nature of the proof required are first and foremost governed by the parties’ agreement.9 Parties often choose to specify the conditions for the recovery of damages, as well as the categories and the amount of damages recoverable (e.g., with liquidated damages, penalty clauses or limitation clauses),10 broadening or limiting the rights available under national laws. However, the parties do not always agree on such arrangements, and, in any event, their agreement is unlikely to be exclusive of all provisions of the applicable rules of law. Further, some national law rules and principles, such as public policy rules and principles, are of mandatory application.
In the absence of, or to supplement, the parties’ agreement relating to damages, arbitral tribunals have to determine the applicable rules of law. The tribunal first has to determine whether damages-related issues are substantive or procedural issues. Most damages-related questions are usually analysed as issues of substance. However, certain aspects, such as the standard of proof, are sometimes analysed as procedural matters, so that different laws or rules of law can apply to different aspects of damages.
The applicable rules of law can be a national law or a convention, principles or sets of rules – such as the CISG,14 the UNIDROIT Principles or the 2002 Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) that have been developed to reflect internationally accepted rules or principles or to achieve a compromise between various legal systems. These international instruments, however, often have to be complemented by national rules of law to the extent that they do not cover specific issues and therefore do not necessarily exclude the application of national laws in those respects.
In addition to national laws, arbitral tribunals at times take a transnational approach, referring to general principles applicable to damages in international arbitration, such as a generally recognised duty to mitigate.15 Such principles, however, are not uniformly identified or applied.
The assessment of damages is driven by a factual determination and often involves complex data and economic issues, such that parties and arbitral tribunals often rely on experts. The parties first have to establish their right to damages, before justifying the type and amount of damages requested. It is thus essential to determine which party bears the burden of proof and what standard should apply.
While the burden of proof determines which party should prove the relevant facts and law underlying an assertion, the standard of proof sets the level of proof required and thus goes to the heart of the case.
This section outlines the conditions to be fulfilled in order to obtain damages and analyses, in particular, the foreseeability requirement and duty to mitigate.
Civil-law jurisdictions embrace similar conditions. The French Civil Code underwent a substantial revision and restructuring with respect to contract law, with Ordinance No. 2016-131 dated 10 February 2016, which entered into force on 1 October 2016.34 The reform has made changes to the damages regime and reshuffled the relevant articles of the Civil Code, but has not significantly changed the applicable principles.
Similar conditions to those found in these civil-law jurisdictions are found in international instruments or transnational principles. Article 74 of the CISG requires the proof of a breach of contract by one party and a loss suffered by the other party as a consequence of the breach. Article 7.4.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles entitles an aggrieved party to full compensation for harm sustained as a result of non-performance.
Where some civil-law jurisdictions do depart from common-law jurisdictions is on the requirement of notice. There is no notice requirement under English common law, unless a notice requirement is imposed by the contract. By contrast, under French law, for example, the claimant must give notice to the respondent that it is in delay or in breach of the agreement and request performance of its obligation within a reasonable time, unless the non-performance is permanent; if the respondent does not perform upon receiving the notice, the claimant will be entitled to damages.42 This requirement is consistent with the emphasis that French law puts on specific performance.
Foreseeability refers to the notion used in common-law jurisdictions. Civil-law jurisdictions do not necessarily refer expressly to foreseeability in the texts relating to damages, although courts and commentators often rely on this requirement. The notion of foreseeability acts as a limitation on the amount of damages that have to be paid in both common- and civil-law systems.
Some other jurisdictions do not refer to foreseeability per se. German law provides, for example, for compensation of losses that are within the scope of protection of the contractual obligation breached, to the exclusion of damages that were not contemplated by the parties in their contract.58 Some specific provisions also include an element of foreseeability, such as Section 252 of the German Civil Code on lost profits, which refers to profits lost that ‘could probably have been expected’ in the ‘normal course of events’ or in ‘special circumstances’, particularly due to the measures and precautions taken.
In common-law jurisdictions, it is accepted that the aggrieved party is under a duty to take steps to minimise and not increase its loss. Damages may be reduced if that party has not taken steps to mitigate its loss. While mitigation and other means of reducing damages will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5, a brief discussion of certain comparative law aspects will be presented here.
Under English law, for example, the claimant must first take all reasonable steps to minimise its loss as a result of the respondent’s breach of its obligation. The claimant cannot recover losses that it could have avoided through reasonable action or inaction. Second, as a consequence of the first rule, the claimant can recover the costs that it has incurred in taking reasonable steps to minimise its loss. This is true even if the steps taken have in fact increased the loss. Reasonable attempts to mitigate will not reduce damages payable, if they are unsuccessful.59 Third, where the claimant has minimised its loss, the damages owed by the respondent are reduced by the amount of the reduction achieved by the claimant.60 The burden of proof in this context is on the defendant.61 This duty is present in other common-law jurisdictions as well.
Contributory negligence is the contribution to the loss by the aggrieved party through its action or inaction and is a separate doctrine in common-law jurisdictions. In a contractual context, contributory negligence can apply if there is a contractual duty of care and the contractual duty of care is concurrent with a tortious duty of care.62 Contributory negligence reduces the damages payable in accordance with the court’s assessment of the parties’ respective responsibilities for the loss.
In common-law jurisdictions, there are three basic categories of recoverable damages.81 The main category is expectation damages, according to which damages are awarded on the basis of putting the claimant in the position it would have been in, but for the breach. A claimant’s ability to recover lost profits will depend on the subject of the breach of contract. For example, it is more likely that a claimant will be able to recover lost profits in a contract for the sale of goods than in a contract for the carriage of goods, as lost profits in the latter situation are generally held to be too remote.82 The second is performance damages – i.e., the cost of curing the defective performance. The third is reliance or ‘wasted expenditures’ damages – i.e., expenditures or other losses that have been incurred by the claimant in reliance on the contract.83 The purpose of reliance damages is to put the claimant in as good a position as it was in prior to the promise.
While there are differences in the approach to compensatory damages in common- and civil-law jurisdictions, or among those jurisdictions, they often lead to similar results, albeit through different paths, so much so that arbitrators, but also national judges and commentators, have identified and applied international principles applicable to damages, such as the duty to mitigate, particularly in international arbitration.
However, the analysis of damages is first and foremost driven by the facts of a case. While the often subtle differences from one legal system to another might not lead to different results in most cases, they might have a significant impact in specific circumstances. It is, therefore, as important to ensure a proper analysis of the facts and of the assessment of the damages, often with the help of experts, as it is to determine the applicable rules of law to which the arbitrators will refer.
All jurisdictions give substantial leeway to judges and arbitrators in the determination of damages. It is, therefore, also important to take into account the legal background of the arbitrators, which might, whether consciously or not, impact their decisions.
1 Clare Connellan and Elizabeth Oger-Gross are partners at White & Case LLP. Angélica André is an associate at White & Case LLP. The authors thank Heather Clark for her contribution to the previous edition of this chapter.
2 H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London 2016), Section 2-001. As discussed below, there are restrictions on a party’s ability to recover non-pecuniary losses in common-law jurisdictions. See, e.g., Common Law Series: The Law of Damages/Part I General Principles/Chapter 4 Damages for non-pecuniary loss/E Disappointment, distress, humiliation and loss of enjoyment/Contract.
3 H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London 2016), Section 2-002, citing Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co  5 App Cas. 25 at 39.
4 Full compensation is the authors’ translation of the French term ‘réparation intégrale’. See A. Bénabent, Droit des obligations (15th ed. L.G.D.J. Précis Domat, 2016) 680. See also H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 2.03.
5 A discussion of compensatory damages principles under other legal traditions is beyond the scope of this chapter.
www.unidroit.org/english/publications/review/articles/2011-3-finazzi-e.pdf, 721. The UNIDROIT provisions on damages were among those most frequently invoked by arbitral tribunals and domestic courts. See also P. Gélinas, ‘General Characteristics of Recoverable Damages in International Arbitration’ in Y. Derains and R. H. Kreindler (eds), Evaluation of Damages in International Arbitration, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Volume 4 (Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) 2006) 20-29.
7 UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UNIDROIT 1994), Introduction, xxiii (PDF 22).
9 C. T. Salomon, ‘Chap 10: Damages in International Arbitration’, in J. Fellas and J. H. Carter (eds), International Commercial Arbitration in New York (2nd ed., OUP New York 2010) 353.
10 See Chapter 4 on contractual limitations on damages.
11 See, e.g., French Code of Civil Procedure Article 1511; Austrian Code of Civil Procedure s. 603; Belgian Code of Civil Procedure Article 1710; 2010 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Article 35.1; SCC Arbitration Rules Article 27; DIAC Arbitration Rules Article 33.1.
12 See, e.g., German Code of Civil Procedure Article 1051; Swiss Private International Law Article 187; 2012 Swiss Rules of Arbitration Article 33; 2011 CRCICA Arbitration Rules Article 35.1.
EC Regulation No. 593/2008 of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) Article 12(1)(c) in combination with Article 4; 1961 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration Article VII(1).
14 See Chapter 3 on damages principles under the convention on contracts for the international sale of goods (CISG).
15 See, e.g., ICC Case No. 2478, Award, Clunet 1975, 925 (‘we should not lose sight of the fact that, by virtue of the general principle of law which is reflected in Article 42(2) and 44(1) of the Swiss Federal Code of Obligations, it belongs to the aggrieved party to take all necessary measures in order not to increase the damage.’). See further, Chapter 5 on principles of reducing damages.
16 N. Blackaby, C. Partasides and others, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (6th ed Oxford University Press, 2015) para. 6.84; G. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd ed. Wolters Kluwer, 2014) 2314.
17 See, e.g., Article 27(1) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; Article 1353 of the French Civil Code (formerly Article 1315); Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code; Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code. This general rule is expressed by the Roman-law expression actori incumbit probatio; H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 2.14; G. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd ed. Wolters Kluwer, 2014) 2314.
18 H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 2.14; N. O’Malley, Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration: an Annotated Guide, 2012, paras. 7.15, 7.32.
19 Argentinian Civil and Commercial Code Article 1735; Colombian General Code of Procedure Article 167.
G. M. von Mehren, C. Salomon, ‘Submitting Evidence in an International Arbitration: The Common Lawyer’s Guide’, 20(3) J. Int’l Arb. 285 (2003), 291.
21 G. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd ed. Wolters Kluwer, 2014) 2315; N. O’Malley, Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration: an Annotated Guide, 2012, para. 7.27.
22 Defined in English law by Lord Denning as ‘more probable than not’ in Miller v. Minister of Pensions  2 All ER 372; and described in the US as the preponderance of the evidence (the standard is satisfied if there is a greater than 50 per cent chance that the proposition is true).
para. 7; H.P. Walter, in H. Hausheer, H.P. Walter (eds), Berner Kommentar, ZGB, Band I/1, Einleitung, Articles 1-9, 2012, para. 134.
24 D. Guével, JurisCl. Civil Code, ‘Art. 1315 et 1315-1: Preuve, Charge de la preuve et règles générales’, 2016, para. 63, and, e.g., French Court of Cassation (1st Civil Chamber), 14 January 2010, No. 08-13160; French Court of Cassation (Commercial Chamber), 6 September 2011, No. 10-17963.
No. 39, p. 7; L. Graton, ‘Le dommage déduit de la faute’, RTD Civ. 2013  ; P. Casson, ‘Dommages et intérêts’, Rép. Droit civil Dalloz 2017, para. 19.
26 H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 4.330.
27 H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London 2016), Section 1-001.
28 Wagon Mound (No. 1)  AC 388; J. Chitty, H. Beale, Chitty on Contracts, 6th ed., 2008, Ch. 26, para. 111. The notion of foreseeability will be further analysed below.
29 The notion of mitigation will be further analysed below.
30 C. T. Salomon, ‘Chap 10: Damages in International Arbitration’, in J. Fellas and J. H. Carter (eds), International Commercial Arbitration in New York (2nd ed., OUP New York 2010) 353.
33 Nulty and others v. Milton Keynes Borough Council  EWCA Civ 15 (‘[T]he court must be satisfied on rational and objective grounds that the case for believing that the suggested means of causation occurred is stronger than the case for not so believing.’).
34 Where relevant, this chapter refers to both the new and the former versions of the provisions of the French Civil Code.
35 Replacing Articles 1142-1144 and 1184 of the French Civil Code.
Y.-M. Laithier, Réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations – Commentaire article par article (LexisNexis, 2016) 485-488. Requests for specific performance require only the showing of a breach of contract (C. Larroumet, S. Bros, Traité de droit civil, Tome 3: Les obligations, Le contrat (8th ed Economica, 2016), para. 645).
37 Formerly Articles 1146-1147 of the French Civil Code.
38 P. Malaurie, L. Aynès, P. Stoffel-Munck, Droit des obligations (8th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 39.
39 Rather than an external cause, cause étrangère, as was previously required under the former Article 1147.
40 D. Mainguy (ed), Le nouveau droit français des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations (après l’ordonnance du 10 février 2016) (UMR-CNRS 5815, 2016) para. 242; O. Deshayes, T. Genicon, Y.-M. Laithier, Réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations – Commentaire article par article (LexisNexis, 2016) 477.
41 H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 4.263. The requirement for a fault arguably also exists under French law (H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) paras. 4.198-4.201).
42 Article 1231 of the French Civil Code (formerly Article 1146). See D. Mainguy (ed), Le nouveau droit français des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations (après l’ordonnance du 10 février 2016) (UMR-CNRS 5815, 2016) para. 242; O. Deshayes, T. Genicon, Y.-M. Laithier, Réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations – Commentaire article par article (LexisNexis, 2016) 517-518.
44 H. Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v. Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd  EWCA Civ 13.
45 Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341.
46 Koufos v. C Czarnikow Ltd (The Heron II)  1 AC 350.
47 Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341.
48 Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd  2 KB 528.
49 Transfield Shipping Inc v. Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas)  UKHL 48; Supershield Ltd v. Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd  EWCA Civ 7; Rubenstein v. HSBC Bank plc  EWCA Civ 1184.
50 Formerly Article 1150 of the French Civil Code.
51 B. Fages, Droit des obligations (6th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 326.
52 P. Malaurie, L. Aynès, P. Stoffel-Munck, Droit des obligations (8th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 965.
53 French Court of Cassation (1st Civil Chamber), 15 July 1999, No. 97-10268.
54 Before the 2016 reform, Article 1150 of the French Civil Code referred only to intentional breach (dol). However, the French courts were already analysing gross negligence as an intentional breach; therefore, the reference to gross negligence in the 2016 reform only codifies applicable case law.
55 Formerly Article 1151 of the French Civil Code.
O. Deshayes, T. Genicon, Y.-M. Laithier, Réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations – Commentaire article par article (LexisNexis, 2016) 520.
57 P. Gélinas, ‘General Characteristics of Recoverable Damages in International Arbitration’ in Y. Derains and R.H. Kreindler (eds), Evaluation of Damages in International Arbitration, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Volume 4 (Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) 2006), p. 10, sp. 15.
58 H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 4.261.
59 Lagden v. O’Connor  1 AC 1067, Lord Scott, para. 78.
60 H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London 2016), Section paras. 9-002 – 9-006.
61 Lombard North Central plc and Automobile World (UK) Ltd  EWCA Civ 20. A claimant should nevertheless consider whether to take steps to show how it has mitigated its loss, as failure to do so can be risky. Bulkhaul Ltd v. Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd  EWCA Civ 1452.
62 Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v. Butcher and others  AC 852; Barclays Bank plc v. Fairclough Ltd  QB 214.
Y. Derains, R. H. Kreindler (eds), Evaluation of Damages in International Arbitration, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Vol. 4 (Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce ICC 2006) p. 79, sp. pp. 81–82.
p. 79, sp. p. 81; C. Larroumet, ‘Obligation de modérer le dommage et arbitrage du point de vue du droit français’, Gaz. Pal. 2008, No. 290, p. 5, para. 1.
65 A. Komarov, ‘Mitigation of Damages’ (2006), in Y. Derains, R. H. Kreindler (eds), Evaluation of Damages in International Arbitration, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Vol. 4 (Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce ICC 2006), p. 37, sp. p. 39.
66 B. Fages, Droit des obligations (6th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 327; A. Komarov, ‘Mitigation of Damages’ (2006), in Y. Derains, R. H. Kreindler (eds), Evaluation of Damages in International Arbitration, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Vol. 4 (Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce ICC 2006), p. 37, sp. p. 39; Y. Taniguchi, ‘The obligation to mitigate damages’ (2006), in Y. Derains, R. H. Kreindler (eds), Evaluation of Damages in International Arbitration, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Vol. 4 (Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce ICC 2006), p. 79, sp. p. 81.
67 French Court of Cassation (2nd Civil Chamber), 19 June 2003, No. 01-13289, JCP G 2003.II.10170, note C. Castets-Renard; with respect to contract law, French Court of Cassation (1st Civil Chamber), 3 May 2006, No. 05-10411, D. 2006, p. 1403, obs. I. Gallmeister.
68 French Court of Cassation (3rd Civil Chamber), 10 July 2013, No. 12-13851; B. Fages, Droit des obligations (6th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 327; P. Malaurie, L. Aynès, P. Stoffel-Munck Droit des obligations (8th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 963.
69 C. Larroumet, ‘Obligation de modérer le dommage et arbitrage du point de vue du droit français’, Gaz. Pal. 2008, No. 290, p. 5, sp. para. 2.
70 P. Malaurie, L. Aynès, P. Stoffel-Munck Droit des obligations (8th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 963; B. Fages, Droit des obligations (6th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 327; C. Larroumet, ‘Obligation de modérer le dommage et arbitrage du point de vue du droit français’, Gaz. Pal. 2008, No. 290, p. 5.
P. Stoffel-Munck Droit des obligations (8th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 963.
72 P. Malaurie, L. Aynès, P. Stoffel-Munck, Droit des obligations (8th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 963. This justification has, however, been criticised (see J. Ortscheidt, La réparation du dommage dans l’arbitrage commercial international, 2001, paras. 233 et seq.; C. Larroumet, ‘Obligation de modérer le dommage et arbitrage du point de vue du droit français’, Gaz. Pal. 2008, No. 290, p. 5, para. 10).
73 C. Larroumet, ‘Obligation de modérer le dommage et arbitrage du point de vue du droit français’, Gaz. Pal. 2008, No. 290, p. 5, para. 11.
74 Ibid., p. 5, para. 5.
75 Ibid., p. 5, paras. 6–9.
76 A. Komarov, ‘Mitigation of Damages’ (2006), in Y. Derains, R. H. Kreindler (eds), Evaluation of Damages in International Arbitration, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Vol. 4 (Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce ICC 2006), p. 37, sp. pp. 40-41; C. Larroumet, ‘Obligation de modérer le dommage et arbitrage du point de vue du droit français’, Gaz. Pal. 2008, No. 290, p. 5, paras. 5–9; G. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd ed. Wolters Kluwer, 2014) p. 3825; E. Gaillard, J. Savage (eds), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 1999), para. 1491.
77 Restatement (2d) of the Law of Contracts, Section 359.
78 See, e.g., in relation to French law, P. Malaurie, L. Aynès, P. Stoffel-Munck, Droit des obligations (8th ed. L.G.D.J. 2016), para. 975, explaining that there is little point in initiating an action for compensatory damages where performance of the contract is possible or the failure to perform cannot be proved.
79 H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 4.256-258.
80 O. Deshayes, T. Genicon, Y.-M. Laithier, Réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations – Commentaire article par article (LexisNexis, 2016) 485-486. See also discussion in D. Mainguy (ed), Le nouveau droit français des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations (après l’ordonnance du 10 février 2016) (UMR-CNRS 5815, 2016) paras. 178-179.
81 There are also various other categories of loss that may be recoverable, such as moral damages, punitive or exemplary damages, non-monetary damages (i.e., specific performance), and these topics are addressed in depth in other chapters of this publication.
82 H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London 2016), Sections 4-0018-19.
83 Halsbury’s Laws of England, Section 503.
84 For the position under English law, see H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London 2016), Section 4-002; for the position under New York law, see C. T. Salomon, ‘Chap 10: Damages in International Arbitration’, in J. Fellas and J. H. Carter (eds), International Commercial Arbitration in New York (2nd ed., OUP New York 2010) 357.
85 For the position under English law, see Halsbury’s Laws of England, Section 317 and H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London 2016), Section 3-008; for the position under New York Law, see C. T. Salomon, ‘Chap 10: Damages in International Arbitration’, in J. Fellas and J. H. Carter (eds), International Commercial Arbitration in New York (2nd ed., OUP New York 2010) 358-359.
86 D. Mainguy (ed), Le nouveau droit français des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations (après l’ordonnance du 10 février 2016) (UMR-CNRS 5815, 2016) para. 199; B. Fages, Droit des obligations (6th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 327.
87 Practical Law Company UK, Damages in International Arbitration, online resource ID 0-519-4371. See also J. Paulsson, ‘The Expectation Model’ in Y. Derains and R. H. Kreindler (eds), Evaluation of Damages in International Arbitration, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Volume 4 (Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce ICC 2006), 63.
88 C. Larroumet, S. Bros, Traité de droit civil, Tome 3: Les obligations, Le contrat (8th ed Economica, 2016) para. 655.
89 In this chapter, we will not discuss contractual limitations, the metric of compensation or the treatment of expert evidence as these topics are being addressed in other chapters of this publication.
90 See e.g. H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 4.38.
91 H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London 2016), Section 2-002, citing Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co  5 App Cas. 25 at 39.
92 See, e.g., for French law, A. Bénabent, Droit des obligations (15th edn L.G.D.J. Précis Domat, 2016), [680-690].
93 H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 4.207.
No. 39, p 7; H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 4.206.
95 H. Wöss and others, Damages in International Arbitration under Complex Long-Term Contracts (OUP, Oxford 2014) para. 4.208.
96 A. Bénabent, Droit des obligations (15th edn L.G.D.J. Précis Domat 2016), para. 680.
97 H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London 2016), Section 10-001.
98 H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London 2016), chapter 10(4).
P. Stoffel-Munck, Droit des obligations (8th ed L.G.D.J., 2016) para. 962.
No. 39, p. 7; C. Larroumet, S. Bros, Traité de droit civil, Tome 3: Les obligations, Le contrat (8th ed Economica, 2016), paras. 684–685.
R. H. Kreindler (eds), Evaluation of Damages in International Arbitration, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Volume 4 (Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce ICC 2006), p. 11.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 UKHL 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.