Foreseeability Alone Wins Consequential Damages
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Contracts1
Example wrong choices
14532_scripture_audio_booth · CONTRACTS · Choice A$72,000, because damages of that amount were within the contemplation of the parties at the time they contracted.
Why it's attractive
The salary fact is disclosed, but the substitute fact would have prevented it.
Why it's wrong
The salary fact is disclosed, but the substitute fact would have prevented it.
14532_scripture_audio_booth · CONTRACTS · Choice BNothing, because neither Martha nor Stephen took steps to avoid the consequences of Barnabas's breach.
Why it's attractive
The answer treats a missed mitigation step as destroying the whole claim.
Why it's wrong
The answer treats a missed mitigation step as destroying the whole claim.
14532_scripture_audio_booth · CONTRACTS · Choice DNominal damages only, because Martha was not injured by the breach and Barnabas made no promise to Stephen.
Why it's attractive
The answer ignores the bargain and the named beneficiary of the work.
Why it's wrong
The answer ignores the bargain and the named beneficiary of the work.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →