causation and remoteness of damage

• burden and standard of proof are fair 


  • c only has to prove that the causation of damage was more likely than not, however this results in an 'all or nothing' approach which may be unfair
• remoteness of damage is a vague test 


  damages can only be claimed if the damage was foreseeable to someone in D's position at the time of the breach

  • issues of 'foreseeability' being subjective although it allows flexibility
  • remoteness test can be unfair as it limits D's liability, doesn't state the extent of the harm or how it came about
• new intervening acts by third parties can break the chain if they are unforeseeable 


  this can be difficult to determine, creates uncertainty

  • the C's own reasonable actions can also prevent their claim, this rule is never consistent with defences like volenti
  • unpredictable natural events can also break the chain, this in no way is D's fault and not within their control, absurd to hold them liable