Harcourt & Langham (No 2)

In *Harcourt & Langham (No 2)*, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether a party, Langham, was entitled to recover damages for breach of contract against Harcourt. The dispute arose from an agreement for the sale of a business, where Langham alleged that Harcourt had failed to comply with certain contractual obligations.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Langham had suffered loss or damage as a result of Harcourt's alleged breaches. Specifically, the Court had to consider the principles of causation and remoteness in contract law, and whether the losses claimed by Langham were a foreseeable consequence of Harcourt's actions or omissions.

Macmillan J applied the principles established in *Hadley v Baxendale* and subsequent authorities, which govern the assessment of damages for breach of contract. His Honour considered whether the losses claimed by Langham were such as arose naturally, according to the usual course of things, from the breach of contract itself, or whether they were such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach. The Court found that Langham had failed to establish that the losses claimed were caused by Harcourt's breaches or that they were otherwise recoverable.

Consequently, the Court ordered that Langham take nothing by its claim against Harcourt, and that Langham pay Harcourt's costs of the proceeding.