When can you claim "consequential loss"?

Supersonos

Listening to the radio last night, a chap phoned up asking if he can return a hamster cage that his hamster chewed through and escaped from.

The legal expert said yes, as it's not fit for it's purpose, and he should go back to the retailer and insist on his £30 for the cage and £10 consequential loss of the hamster escaping (£10 being the purchase cost of the hamster).

What are the limits of this consequential loss?  If the hamster had then been eaten by their dog who choked to death, would the shop also have to pay the £1000 cost of the dog??

Sandtree

Same as any other liability claim the test is on the remoteness... its reasonably foreseeable that a cage sold to house rodents, who by definition gnaw, who’s bars aren’t chew proof will result in the loss of the animal.  Arguing that the hamster then gnawed your sofa so you want £100 to fix the sofa is starting to get fairly remote.... saying your dog choked on the escaped hamster would almost certainly be considered too remote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remoteness_in_English_law

Obviously all of this has to be considered in relation to any other terms of the contract (such as the contract of sale for buying the hamster) which may well attempt to limit the liability  

unholyangel

One of the biggest mistake made (by solicitors too) is that a loss is consequential when in fact it's direct. 

Losses are recoverable under two limbs.
A direct loss is one that arises in the natural course of things, that it would be obvious to the world at large that such a breach could cause such a loss. These are always recoverable
A consequential (aka indirect loss) is one that doesn't arise in the natural course but from special circumstances. These are only recoverable if the circumstances were in the contemplation of the parties at the time of entering the contract.

Any other loss is considered too remote and never recoverable.