In The Achilleas, the House of Lords gave the most recent interpretation of Hadley v Baxendale and the limits on the recovery of con- sequential damages. Lord Hoffmann rejected the emphasis on foreseeability and 'the requisite degree of probability of loss', focusing instead on the tacit assumption of the parties. This paper provides a theoretical framework for ascertaining the tacit assumption and applies it to the particular facts of The Achilleas. The House of Lords opinion in The Achilleas 1 has generated a consider- able amount of commentary. AWestlaw search yielded five pages worth of citations. 2 Lawyers from various parts of the Commonwealth, and even the author of the opinion, have weighed in. 3 It might perhaps be helpful to add to this burgeoning literature the perspective of an outsider— a Yank and non-lawyer. The case provided a platform for a reassessment of Hadley v Baxendale. 4 The facts will be developed more fully below. The bare bones version is this. A charterer breached its contract by redelivering the ship nine days late. The owner had entered into a subsequent charter with Cargill for four months relying on the ship being returned on time. While the market rate when the Cargill fixture was set was substantially greater than the original charter rate, the rates had fallen by the time the ship had been redelivered. Cargill took advantage of the late delivery by rejecting the ship and then renegotiating its charter at the lower rate.