Defendants contracted to sell and deliver boiler to plaintiffs.
Knew plaintiffs wished to put boiler to immediate use.
But did not know of particularly lucrative contracts plaintiffs
had with Ministry of Supply.
Plaintiffs sued for loss of profits.
Court of Appeal held defendants liable for profits
which flowed naturally for breach of contract.
But not liable for loss of profits on particularly
lucrative Ministry of Supply contracts
Court expressed test thus: Was damage resulting from
breach reasonably foreseeable?
Made it clear this would include both heads under Hadley.