The principle is applicable to a partial as well as to a total breach. Thus the importance of performance exactly at the time agreed or with unusual promptness may be brought home to the defendant by notice which mil make him liable for exceptional consequences of delay.45 If the action is against a carrier for breach of a contract of interstate carriage, the inquiry may be made whether the Interstate Commerce Acts will permit a carrier to subject itself to heavy consequential damages for the same rate as is fixed by its schedules for a contract of transportation without such damages. Certainly if liability to consequential damages can be regarded as based on a contractual agreement the assumption of extraordinary liability could not be allowed without special provision in the schedules.46
Not only profits prevented but losses sustained are within the rule. Losses which would not otherwise have been foreseeable as likely to happen if a contract was broken may be taken into consideration if in view of the circumstances of which the defendant had notice when he entered into the contract he might have anticipated them.47
Co., 45 N. Y. 744, 6 Am. Rep. 165; Gandee v. Western Union Telegraph Go., 34 Wis. 471, 17 Am. Rep. 452; United States Telegraph Co. v. Gilder-sieve, 29 Md. 232, 96 Am. Dec. 519.
44 pencer v. Hamilton, 113 N. G. 49, 18 8. E. 167, 37 Am. St. Rep. 611.
45 Iowa Mfg. Co. v. B. F. Sturte-vant Co., 162 Fed. 460, 80 C. C. A. 346, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 575; Cobb, fihsdel So Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 38 Iowa, 601; Industrial Works 9. Mitchell, 114 Mich. 29, 72 N. W. 25; Hayes v. Wabash R. Co., 163 Mich. 174, 128 N. W. 217, 31 L R. A. (N. S.) 229; Wolfe v. Weir, 61 N. Y. Misc. 57, 112 N. Y. S. 1078; Waagh v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. (Tex.
Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 843. In Hart-Parr Co. v. Barth Mfg. Co., 249 Fed. 629, 161 C. C. A. 539, there having been no prior notice such damages were denied.
46 See supra, Sec.1073.
47 Iowa Mfg. Co. v. B. F. Sturte-vant Co., 162 Fed. 460, 89 C. C. A. 346, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 575; Ramsey v. Capshaw, 71 Ark. 408, 75 S. W. 479; Nelson v. Wilson, 157 la. 80, 137 N. W. 1048; Feland v. Berry, 130 Ky. 328, 113 S. W. 426; Berghuis v. Sohults, 119 Minn. 87, 137 N. W. 201; Lissberger v. Kellogg, 78 N. J. L. 85. 73 AtL 67; Mead v. Kalberg, 70 Wash. 517, 127 Pao. 185; Hammer v. Schoonfelder, 47 Wis. 455, 2 N. W. 1129.