the contract. The logic for proving foreseeability is that a party who can foresee a consequences of a breach of a contract can modify the contract price accordingly to compensate for the risk that is assumed. Further, in order to recover damages caused by a breach, the non-breaching party must act reasonably and timely to mitigate its damages. The Supreme Court of the United States has held in United States v. 50 Acres of Land that consequential damages are not available in U.S. Federal takings. Example The provenance of the legal theory underlying "consequential damages" is widely attributed to the 19th century English case of Hadley v. Baxendale, in which a miller contracted for the purchase of a crankshaft for a steam engine at the mill. The party agreeing to produce the part (which was critical to the mill's operation and/or output) agreed to deliver the part for inspection as to fit by a certain date in order to avoid contractual and other business loss/liability. When the part was not delivered for inspection on time, the miller sued to recover not only the direct costs that were incident to the alleged breach, but also to recover the costs/losses that were entailed with the production shutdown resulting from the failure to timely deliver the crankshaft. Thus, Baxendale came to stand for the proposition that "consequential damages" are recoverable where a contract is breached by a party that knows – or is imputed to know – that ordinary expectancy, reliance, or restitution damages will not suffice to meet damages caused by the breach. References Judicial remedies