§ 67. How much compensation can you claim?
Compensation (erstatning) must cover the actual loss — expenses, price difference and lost profit — that the other party has caused you through the breach of contract (kontraktbrudd). But only what could reasonably have been foreseen. Indirect loss (indirekte tap) (business interruption, loss from lost contracts) has its own rules and requires stronger grounds. Ordinary measures to compensate for the defect (mangel) count as direct loss (direkte tap).
Machine-translated from Norwegian. The Norwegian text is the one that applies. Read the original in Norwegian.Norsk English العربية Polski Українська
The text of the law (unofficial translation)
(1) Compensation for breach of contract by one party shall correspond to the loss, including expenses, price difference and lost profit, which the other party has suffered as a result of the breach of contract. However, this applies only to loss which one could reasonably have foreseen as a possible consequence of the breach of contract.
(2) The following is regarded as indirect loss: a. loss resulting from reduced or lost production or turnover (business interruption) b. loss resulting from the goods not being able to be used as intended (loss of use) c. lost profit resulting from a contract with a third party lapsing or not being properly performed, but only insofar as the buyer (kjøper) without reasonable cause fails to make a replacement purchase (dekningskjøp) or take other measures to avoid or reduce the loss d. loss resulting from damage to anything other than the goods sold themselves and objects which they are used to produce or which have a close and direct connection with their intended use.
(3) The rules in the second paragraph do not apply to a. costs of ordinary measures which compensate for the goods sold being delayed or having defects, b. costs of measures which limit loss other than that covered by the second paragraph, or c. compensation paid to a consumer buyer under the rules in the Consumer Purchases Act (forbrukerkjøpsloven) § 34.
What does this mean?
Compensation must cover the real loss — not punish the other party and not give you a profit. The law has three levels:
Main rule (first paragraph): You get all loss covered — expenses, price difference, lost profit. But only what "could reasonably be foreseen". Example: If you run an ice cream shop and a refrigerated counter fails, it is foreseeable that the ice cream melts. But if you run a high-tech company and a specialised machine fails with unusually large consequences — it may be harder to show foreseeability.
Indirect loss is defined (second paragraph): Four categories:
- (a) Business interruption: Production or turnover is lost
- (b) Loss of use: You cannot use the goods as intended
- (c) Lost profit from third parties: You lose contracts with your own customers — but only if you, without reasonable cause, did not make a replacement purchase or take other measures
- (d) Consequential damage: Damage to other things (not the goods themselves)
Indirect loss is NOT covered by the main liability (the strict liability (kontrollansvar) in §§ 27 and 40). To get it covered, you must show negligence or a guarantee (garanti) — stricter requirements.
What is NOT indirect loss (third paragraph):
- Costs of ordinary compensating measures (renting a machine while you wait, replacement purchase)
- Costs of measures that limit other loss (typical damage-limiting measures)
- Compensation passed on from a consumer purchase (forbrukerkjøp) (§ 34 of the Consumer Purchases Act)
This is direct loss, and is covered under the main liability.
Comparison: Direct vs. indirect loss
| Example | Category |
|---|---|
| Price difference on a replacement purchase | Direct |
| Extra shipping costs | Direct |
| Rental of a replacement machine | Direct (ordinary measure) |
| Storage rent due to late delivery (levering) | Direct |
| Lost production while you wait | Indirect (business interruption) |
| Loss because a contract with a third party falls through | Indirect |
| Damage to other things (building, fixtures) | Indirect |
| "Loss of use" — not being able to use the goods | Indirect |
Examples
Tom runs a small manufacturing firm. A machine he has bought fails — production stands still for two weeks. Lost profit: NOK 65,000. This is business interruption (indirect loss, § 67 (2) (a)). Tom can NOT get it covered on strict liability alone (§ 40). He must show either the seller's (selger) negligence or that the seller had promised specific properties. If the machine was marketed with specific reliability, promised properties may fit. Otherwise it is difficult.
Eva is in the same situation, but instead of letting production stand still, she rents an equivalent machine for NOK 22,000 for two weeks. The rental cost of NOK 22,000 is NOT indirect loss — it is an ordinary measure that compensates for the defect (§ 67 (3) (a)). It is covered as direct loss under the main liability. Eva gets this without having to show negligence. Lesson: practical measures to keep going are often covered. Sitting and waiting often is not.
Common mistakes
- Claiming indirect loss without showing negligence or promised properties
- Forgetting to make a replacement purchase and claiming full lost profit — may be affected by § 70
- Including annoyance and stress — hard to document financially
- As a seller: thinking you escape all indirect loss — you must show that there was no negligence
What should you do?
As the injured party:
- Document everything with receipts and calculations
- Take mitigating measures — it shows you have tried to limit the loss
- Separate direct and indirect loss in your claim
- For indirect loss: build arguments about negligence or promised properties
As the liable party:
- Assess what is actually direct vs. indirect
- Offer to cover direct loss quickly — saves interest costs
- Dispute indirect loss where reasonable
- § 27Compensation for delay
- § 40Compensation for defects
- § 68Price difference on replacement
- § 70Duty to limit loss