There's an enormous amount of learning on this in a very large number
of jurisdictions. Some of the leading cases in England are:
Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd
(1999) 70 Con LR 33
Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No. 7) (2001) 76 Con LR 148
City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2010] CSIH 68
Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services [2011] EWHC 848
Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd v Fenice Investments Inc [2011] EWHC 1935
Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Mckay [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC)
Saga Cruises BDF Ltd & Anor v Fincantieri SPA [2016] EWHC 1875
North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1744
Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
[2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC)

In most jurisdictions, this is largely viewed as a causation question.
Notably, a different approach is taken under e.g. UAE laws to English
law on this


On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 at 23:27, Wright, Richard <rwright@kentlaw.iit.edu> wrote:
>
> Yes, it usually will or should eventually work out as an issue regarding damages (or scope of liability), but these issues very often continue to be confused with the analytically prior issue of causation. I have since my initial article on these issues in 1985 noted the need to distinguish them. With support from Jane Stapleton, my efforts have led to these issues being more clearly (but still far from completely) distinguished in the Restatement Third of Torts. The issues are too many and complex to try even to summarize them is this post. See, instead, part IV (and then prior parts) of my article, Causation (Contribution) and the 'No Worse Off Limitation on Liability, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=4029151, http://works.bepress.com/richard_wright/81/, and (originally) https://www.able.uwa.edu.au/centres/uwalr/issues/2022-volume-49,-issue-1.
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:41 PM Andrew Tettenborn <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Won't this very often come down to damages? You fail to complete construction work on my condo building, but I drag my feet on getting approval from the municipality. If I sue you for damages at large, surely you're entitled to say, No loss.
>>
>> Mind you, a nice issue would be whether I could enforce a $5000 a day liquidated damages clause in respect of a period when I couldn't have used the building anyway. I incline to the view that I probably could, but if addressed by able counsel a court might be prepared to do a bit of nifty footwork on interpretation.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 20/01/2023 18:19, Jason W Neyers wrote:
>>
>> Dear Colleagues:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a graduate student who is interested in the problem of concurrent delay in construction contracts. Concurrent delay occurs when there are two or more independent events of delay during the same time period on a construction schedule and each event affects the completion date of the construction project. The complexity arises where each event of delay is caused by a different party to the construction contract – the contractor and the employer. In such cases, the employer may sue the contractor for damages due to delayed performance of the contract, and the contractor may raise as a defense that the employer also contributed to the delay.
>>
>>
>>
>> Assuming the losses are not too remote (on the Hadley v Baxndale standard), this seems to raise some very interesting issues surrounding causation in the law of contract and perhaps arguments surrounding something like contributory negligence. If any knows of any interesting discussions of concurrent delay, causation in contract or contributory negligence (or anything which you think related) I would be very much interested in knowing of them. For example, is there any reason to think that the test for causation is or should be different for a breach of contracts case than it is in the law of torts? Similarly, if substitutive damages as well as consequential damages are available for breach of contract does concurrent delay affect their assessment?
>>
>>
>>
>> Self promotion is encouraged!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jason Neyers
>> Professor of Law
>> Faculty of Law
>> Western University
>> Law Building Rm 26
>> e. jneyers@uwo.ca
>> t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You're receiving this message because you're a member of the obligations group from The University of Western Ontario. To take part in this conversation, reply all to this message.
>>
>> View group files | Leave group | Learn more about Microsoft 365 Groups
>>
>>
>> --
>> br>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Tettenborn
>> Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University
>>
>> Institute for International Shipping and Trade Law
>> School of Law, University of Swansea
>> Richard Price Building
>> Singleton Park
>> SWANSEA SA2 8PP
>> Phone 01792-602724 / (int) +44-1792-602724
>> Fax 01792-295855 / (int) +44-1792-295855
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Tettenborn
>> Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe
>>
>> Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol
>> Ysgol y Gyfraith, Prifysgol Abertawe
>> Adeilad Richard Price
>> Parc Singleton
>> ABERTAWE SA2 8PP
>> Ffôn 01792-602724 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-602724
>> Ffacs 01792-295855 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295855
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> See us on Twitter: @swansea_dst
>> Read the IISTL Blog: iistl.wordpress.com
>> My publications can be found here and here and here
>> Member of the Heterodox Academy and member and adviser of the Free Speech Union
>>
>>
>>
>> Disclaimer: This email (including any attachments) is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential information and/or copyright material. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and all copies from your system. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or other form of unauthorized dissemination of the contents is expressly prohibited.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>