Consequential-loss list with a nested profits line beside a standalone limb, no face

How to Review a Named Lost-Profits Limb in a Consequential-Loss List

Mark a nested including-profits line as examples only, then treat a whether-direct-or-indirect limb as the cut on direct profit.

October 6, 2026•9 min read•Article

💡

Key takeaway in 30 seconds

Branwen needs how to review a named lost-profits limb in a consequential-loss list before Friday on a linen-apron fulfilment MSA. Nested including loss of profits is an example of the consequential class, not a separate ban on direct profit. A whether-direct-or-indirect limb can cut that direct head. Profit, revenue, and anticipated savings are different words. Split the list, keep direct profit, or walk.

Friday 9 October 2026 is the signature date. Branwen reviews a 15-person UK brand of linen apron sets from a Narberth workshop. English law. Courts of England and Wales.

The packet — the papers she will sign — is a fulfilment MSA — the master services agreement — with Cleddau Pack Ltd in Carmarthen.

The hidden risk sits in clause 17.3. For example, neither party is liable for indirect or consequential loss, including loss of profits, loss of revenue, and anticipated savings. The Supplier line then bars loss of profits whether direct or indirect.

A Bath debit dated 18 September 2026 is about £2,740. It is a missed drop, not a court finding. Slack also folds in an autumn window of about £5,180. That window is this note only.

Slack says the including-line already kills the profit, and that revenue and savings are just profit. That is the typical mistake. The pressure is Friday.

Disclaimer: Checkory provides AI support, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for binding decisions.

How do you read “including loss of profits” in the list?

A nested including-line names examples of the consequential class. It is not, by itself, a separate ban on direct profit.

A Pinsent Masons note records Pegler Ltd v Wang. Including loss of anticipated profits, under indirect loss, did not catch direct profit. It does not decide clause 17.3.

The Hill Dickinson note shows the drafting pair. An including-list under any indirect loss is read as examples only. A standalone head is a different sentence. Do not paste either sample onto this MSA.

The Addleshaw Goddard note on 2 Entertain v Sony is the explicit version. The list applied only where the items were indirect. Fire profits were direct. Do not import that cap.

In practice, the first sentence is the example limb. The second sentence is the extra problem. Do not crown Pegler as Branwen’s result.

Checklist of a nested including line marked as examples only

Three jobs inside one Slack line.

Phrase.	Job.	Write.
Including loss of profits.	Examples of the consequential class.	Not a ban by itself.
Whether direct or indirect.	Can cut direct profit.	Supplier-only. Mark it.
Loss of revenue.	A different word.	Do not merge it with profit.
Anticipated savings.	A third word.	Not the Bath debit.

When to treat “whether direct or indirect” as the cut?

The second sentence can reach profit that arose in the ordinary way. The including-line does not do that job. Mark them apart before you sign.

Hill Dickinson says a standalone head excludes loss of profit whether direct or indirect. Clause 17.3 already uses those cutting words, and only against the Supplier.

A Gowling WLG note on the 2025 EE appeal says the profits limb was additional to the indirect limb. A lost-revenue label did not save the claim.

Hill Dickinson notes a Transocean obiter: consequential might mean what business people usually mean. Colour only. Read the words on the page.

The whether-limb binds the Supplier, not both parties. Branwen’s claim against Cleddau Pack is the one in the line of fire. Flag the one-way cut. Do not call it decided.

Comparison of an including line against a whether-direct limb

How do you keep profit, revenue, and savings apart?

They are three marks on the page. A court may still re-label a damages claim. Do not merge the words, and do not trust a rename to save the window.

Hill Dickinson uses Victoria Laundry as colour. Ordinary trading profit can be direct. Profit on unknown special contracts can be indirect. The autumn window is not that case.

A Wiggin note records the split. Zacaroli LJ took the ordinary meaning. Phillips LJ dissented. Coulson LJ joined the majority. The dissent is not the holding.

A Walker Morris note on Soteria v IBM rejects that leap. Wasted expenditure was not inside loss of profit, revenue, or savings. Do not import that case’s figures.

The Hawkswell Kilvington note says the same thing more shortly. For example, write three boxes: profit, revenue, and anticipated savings. Put the window nearer profit. Put a failed reprint nearer wasted cost.

Three cards keeping profit, revenue, and savings apart

✅

These two sums are this packet.

£2,740 is the Bath debit for a missed drop. £5,180 is the Slack window. Neither one is a court finding or a market norm.

Can a customer debit still be the natural loss?

On a customer-facing miss, the natural loss may be the cost of the drop, not a forecast of profit. The clause does not decide which label fits. You still have to sort the file.

Pinsent Masons on GB Gas is the colour. Customer compensation and extra borrowing were not losses of profits there. That is not a holding on clause 17.3.

Norton Rose Fulbright, on the EE first instance, drew a different line. A debt for services actually provided is not the same claim as damages for customers never served. The Norton Rose note is the 2023 word. The 2025 appeal is later.

In practice, the £2,740 debit is the missed drop. The £5,180 window is a forecast Slack wants folded in. Mark the debit as this drop only. Mark the window as this forecast only. Do not let one word eat both.

The problem is the merge. Calling both lost profit may overwork the whether-limb. Calling the debit revenue can still fail, as EE shows. Verify both labels. Do not approve either sum.

Is this the whole consequential-loss review?

No. This page is the named lost-profits limb only. The rest of the exclusion is a different hunt. Do not rebuild Hadley, every head, or a cap on this margin.

British Sugar, as both notes set it out, treats consequential loss as indirect loss. Direct profit can still exist under a bare label. That lesson is the tour, not this limb.

Open the consequential-loss review if the fight is the whole clause. One sentence is enough. Come back when the question is including versus whether direct or indirect.

A model clause that names loss of profit beside indirect loss is not clause 17.3. There is no ceiling here. Do not start a cap sum on this page.

💡

The tour stays next door.

The consequential-loss review is the whole exclusion. This log is the named profits limb only.

Do you split the list, keep direct profit, or walk?

Split the list if the including-line can stay as examples and the whether-limb can narrow. Keep direct profit if that Supplier sentence has to come out. Walk if both lines must stay.

The success bar is a one-page checklist you fill before you sign. Quote both sentences. Mark including, the whether-limb, and the three money words. Then choose.

Negotiate the whether-limb if you cannot drop the debit. Do not negotiate by renaming revenue as profit. EE shows a new label can fail.

Upload the same file and the flags come back on it. They are a highlighter, not a decision. Not a chat, a Word add-on, or a contract-lifecycle suite.

Quote the limb, then mark including, then mark whether, then split the three words, then mark the debit, then choose. The pause is the whether-limb. If you cannot split the list, walk.