Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries

335 words (1 pages) Case Summary

28th Sep 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Legal Case Summary

Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528

Delayed delivery of boiler to laundry company; whether lost profits recoverable


Victoria Laundry Ltd (VLL) ordered a large boiler from Newman Industries Ltd (NIL) in contemplation of some lucrative dyeing contracts. NIL were aware of the nature of VLL’s business, and that it was intended for the boiler to be put to use as soon as possible. The delivery of the boiler was delayed by five months and VLL claimed for breach of contract.


VLL claimed damages for their lost profits caused by the delay. They argued losses which would reasonably foreseeably flow from the breach would be recoverable and, therefore, since NIL knew the boiler was required as soon as possible for business purposes, they must have contemplated the use for which the boiler was to be put. VLL claimed it was not necessary to prove actual knowledge of the precise loss. NIL argued they had no special knowledge of running a laundry business or that the boiler was necessary for immediate profit making and, therefore, they were not liable for lost profits. NIL claimed that lost profits amounted to special circumstances which must have been explicitly brought to their attention prior to the breach if they were to be held liable. They could not be assumed to have known the delay would cause lost profits.


VLL successfully recovered the lost profits. NIL knew the boiler was required for VLL’s business and had promised delivery by a specific date. They could not reasonably argue they could not foresee that lost profits would result from the delay. It was unnecessary to prove NIL had specific knowledge of the specific contracts which had been lost. Damages would be awarded for losses which could reasonably have been expected to be lost.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles