The House of Lords decision on the Achilleas has sparked much debate, prompting a re-examination of Hadley v Baxendale . Typically, the Hadley v Baxendale rule is expressed in terms of foreseeability or remoteness. The thumb rule as stated in terms of two limbs was further refined by other cases such as Heron II. Before the Achilleas, the Hadley v Baxendale doctrine had been liberalized by widening the scope of foreseeability. However, a lot of subjective interpretations may occur as a result of this case, resulting in uncertainty. The primary point of contention is whether it creates new tests or only assists existing Hadley tests, with the new version as enunciated by Achilleas being used only in specific circumstances. Although we can not equate the presumption of responsibility with knowledge as defined by Section 73 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1972. Furthermore, it does not provide a new criterion for the remoteness of the damage, making it only applicable in restricted circumstances.
The Indian position concerning the standard laid in the Achilleas case is not explicitly part of the law of land. The inclination towards the Hadley standard is apparent with help of various cases as discussed in the paper. Nevertheless, the achilleas rule is applied in certain circumstances, which is often the case of subjective interpretation. Given the contract law provisions and illustrations, the codification of the Hadley rule is reflective in the statute. Moreover, despite the lack of a conclusive conclusion, the judgment shows that the Hadley rule is preferred.