Remoteness: losses from special circumstances not communicated (Hadley v Baxendale)

Under the rule in Hadley v Baxendale, damages for breach of contract are recoverable for losses that arise naturally, according to the usual course of things, from the breach, or that may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties when they made the contract as the probable result of the breach. Where special circumstances are communicated, losses arising from them are within contemplation; where they are wholly unknown to the party in breach, it can be taken to have contemplated only the loss arising generally. The £300 cost of re-sending the samples arises naturally from a courier's late delivery. The loss of the export deal depended on a deadline and a contract that Wren Valley never told Swiftline about. That loss is too remote, so Wren Valley recovers the natural losses but not the lost export profit.

Why A is wrong: Causation is not enough; losses must also satisfy the remoteness test in Hadley v Baxendale.

Why B is wrong: Losses arising naturally from late delivery are recoverable whether or not the courier knew the purpose of the delivery.

Why C is wrong: The lost export profit flowed from special circumstances unknown to Swiftline, not from late delivery in the usual course of things.

Why D is wrong: There is no general rule limiting a courier's liability to a refund; the normal contractual measure of damages applies.