In the Canadian case Victoria Laundry v. Newman Ind.  2 K.B. 528 (CA 1949), the Laundry wanted a new dye machine, but it took several months longer to set up than the contract stipulated.  Damages were awarded for "business profits", but not for unusual profits (such as special jobs) that might have been realized if the equipment had been delivered on time.

• Court ruled that what was reasonably foreseeable at the time depended on the knowledge of the various parties.  There are two types of knowledge, imputed, and actual.  Everyone, as reasonable people, are expected to know certain things.  However, in order to make the contract break liable, it is not necessary that he should have actually asked himself what loss is liable to result from such a breach.  It suffices if, had he considered the question, would he, as a reasonable man, have concluded the losses were likely to occur.