ABSTRACT
Many litigation problems that arise in the law of damages focus on the quantum and on the extent of the ‘damage’ to be compensated and conceptually this kind of problem, as has been seen (Chapter 6), can be rationalised through the notion of a recognised and protected interest. Yet, the courts themselves rarely use this language, save perhaps under the guise of ‘policy’. Instead, the courts prefer to approach the problem of assessing the extent of damage from the starting point that the law cannot take account of everything that follows from a wrongful act. This leads to the practice of dividing up harm into a series of consequences flowing from the wrongful act.1 Having done this, it becomes possible to assign some of these consequences to an independent cause. Thus, the language of damage limitation is, on the whole, one of cause.2 Sometimes, the notion of cause is used directly, but on a more general level the topic itself has been broken down into a series of devices and techniques each attracting, seemingly, its own principles and rules. Thus, in addition to factual causation itself, there are rules regarding remoteness of damage, contributory negligence, loss of a chance, mitigation of damage, illegal behaviour, consent, self-induced frustration and so on. And all of these different devices and principles warrant separate chapters in the textbooks. In total, however, they are all concerned with the single question of the relationship between the damage and the breach of obligation.
