Can Delamont be held liable for losses beyond the applicable notice period?

Second, the respondents argue that the award does not meet the requirement of proximity for contract damages set out in Hadley v. Baxendale. That test provides that damages arising in respect of a breach of contract should be such as arise either naturally, i.e., in the usual course of things, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of a breach. The respondents argue that it was not within contemplation of the parties that Delamont be held liable for losses beyond the applicable notice period.