- Force majeure and construction of exclusion for indirect or consequential loss or damage (2 Entertain Video v Sony)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- (1) Force majeure
- (2) Liability for indirect or consequential losses
- Case details
Commercial analysis: Sony, as warehouse owner, could not rely on the force majeure clause to exclude its liability to 2 Entertain Video (2EV) for damage to 2EV’s goods caused by a major fire started during the London riots of August 2011. Sony was liable to 2EV for damages for breach of contract, in bailment and for conversion. There had been an earlier settlement of stock claim by Sony’s insurers. The exclusion clause for indirect or consequential loss or damage did not apply to exclude Sony’s liability for the loss of profits and business interruption losses suffered by 2EV over and above the stock losses, up to the level of the contractual cap on damages of £5m. Written by Gavin Hamilton, barrister, at 3PB Barristers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial