Imho

Since the opposition is between "dommages matériels" and "dommages immatériels", caused by the supplier or its servants or agents, "dommages immatériels" are direct financial losses.

“Neither the contractor nor the purchaser shall be liable to the other by way of indemnity or by reason of any breach of the contract or of statutory duty, or by reason of tort (including but not limited to negligence) for any loss of profit, loss of use, loss of production, loss of contracts or for any financial or economic loss or for any indirect or consequential damage whatsoever that may be suffered by the other.”
http://www.iaccm.com/news/contractingexcellence/?storyid=130...

The underlined catch-all provision -- for any financial or economic loss -- is vital and should ensure that a good claims expert cannot spend profitable time trying to find alternative descriptions for non physical loss to avoid the exclusion of “loss of profit, loss of use, loss of production, loss of contracts.”

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2012-07-26 20:27:43 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, the above is all one quote, but the link got into the middle of it instead of the end.

(It is also safest to stay close to the source text.)
Intangible damages include moral, emotional, and punitive damages.
---
The Award of Punitive and Emotional Distress Damages in Breach ...
www.nesl.edu/userfiles/file/nejicl/vol8/avallone_v8n2.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Before one may analyze the relationship between moral damages, and punitive and emotional distress damages, a definition of moral damages must be ...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2012-07-26 19:27:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Intangible Damages - Definition of the Insurance Term Intangible ...
www.online-health-insurance.com/health.../intangible-damage...
Intangible Damages - Damages awarded for such things as pain and suffering following an accident (e.g., when an insured damages another car, his liability ...


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2012-07-26 19:28:01 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Thus also includes pain & suffering.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:27:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

intangible damage or injury, v. indirect damage or injury

Not a very satisfactory solution on the face of it, I admit, but one which I justify by the explanations below. I would avoid using "consequential loss" as it is very specific and indeed often mis-used in English law. It is very, er, English. Likewise, the notion of "dommages immatériels" is very French, again, implying a reading which is very, well, French!

Note the use of "damage" not "damageS", the latter being compensation "dommages et intérêts", an easy mistake to make, (a tenny weeny typo does it), but it is a mistake which could have serious consequences and which may make the more knoweldge client cringe.


dommages immatériels vs dommages indirects
I think it is a question of remoteness. “Dommages indirects” seem to be further down the chain of causation than “dommages immatériels”. How does the French notion of remoteness of damage compare to the UK (or US) notion?
1) On « dommages immatériels »
http://www.grouperouge.fr/assurances-entreprise-garantie-dom...
« …tout préjudice d'ordre pécuniaire tel que perte de chiffre d'affaires, frais divers, conséquences financières de la privation de jouissance d'un bien ou d'un service... »
Sounds straight forward enough, but French insurers consider three types of « dommages immatériels”. The schema is quite helpful on this source.
« 2.1 Les dommages immatériels consécutifs : il s'agit de dommages immatériels consécutifs à un dommage corporel ou matériel garanti (par la police R.C).
Exemple : un court circuit dans un onduleur livré et installé par l’assuré est à l’origine d’un dommage d’incendie dans la salle informatique du client entraînant une perte d'exploitation. Le dommage matériel est garanti car il est "causé par" l'onduleur livré par l'assuré. La perte d’exploitation qui en résulte - consécutive au dommage matériel ci-dessus, garanti par la police est couverte au titre des "Dommages immatériels Consécutifs".
2.2 Les dommages immatériels consécutifs à un dommage corporel ou matériel non garanti (par la police R.C).
Exemple : seul l’onduleur (dans l’exemple précédent) subit un dommage. Il n'y a pas de dommage d'incendie causé au local. Ici, le seul dommage matériel est celui qui est subi par l'onduleur, et un tel dommage n'est pas couvert pas la police RC. En revanche, la perte d'exploitation qui en résulte est couverte au titre des "Dommages immatériels non consécutifs". Cette perte d'exploitation n'aurait pas été couverte avec la définition des dommages immatériels du § 3.2.1 précédent.
2.3 Les dommages immatériels non consécutifs (encore appelés par les assureurs dommages immatériels "purs") : il s'agit de dommages immatériels se produisant alors même qu'il n'y a aucun dommage matériel ni corporel à l'origine des dommages immatériels. »

2) On « dommages indirects »
http://www.assurance-site.fr/lexique-assurance-D.html
« Dommages indirects
Dommages considérés comme étant la conséquence directe d’un sinistre mais dont le rapport de causalité est trop lointain pour ouvrir droit à une indemnisation. »
From the same source, compare the definition of “dommages immatériels”.

3) On causation and remoteness of damage (UK).
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199287642/hodgson_ch02.pdf
CF page 71, for the notion of remoteness : direct consequences and reasonably foreseeable consequences.
I think it is useful to stop there, as you can already see the notions are already diverging.
I mean, take a look at page 76, the Wagon Mound. Every UK law student knows this one!
“2.5.1.5 The jurisdiction of reasonable foreseeability as a test of remoteness of damage
You should consider whether ‘foreseeability’ is restricted to the law of negligence as a governing factor in ‘remoteness’. Its jurisdiction appears to extend beyond the tort of negligence. The Wagon Mound (No. 2) (above) is authority for the proposition that the tort of nuisance is subject to the same test of remoteness as negligence, and the House of Lords has held in Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53 that this is also the case for liability arising under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which imposes strict liability at common law. (Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher are covered in Chapter 11.
There now seems every likelihood that foreseeability will be held to be the test of remoteness in some other torts as well, whether or not it [foreseeability] is the test of liability’. (Winfield pp. 158–9).
It may not apply to deceit (Winfield, p. 289) or any tort where liability turns on proof of intention or recklessness; the action for breach of statutory duty may also be exempt from the influence of foreseeability. The position with the tort of defamation is not abundantly clear.”

4) Is “consequential” loss or damage a useful solution?
http://www.herbertsmith.com/NR/rdonlyres/58D8F9B2-2D93-4F79-...
(Takes me back. Used to instruct this firm when I worked in ethics and discipline, and later in protection and indemnity shipping insurance).
“What is "consequential loss"?

In order for an exclusion clause to be effective, it must clearly identify what losses are being excluded. However, parties often include a clause that excludes "consequential loss" (or "consequential damage") without any proper understanding of that term or what the exclusion will in fact achieve. Consequential loss is often used in everyday language as shorthand for a broad category of losses including loss of profit, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill and so on; but the legal meaning of the term may be quite different. As a result, a clause that purports to exclude liability for consequential losses may not in fact achieve the result that the parties intended or expected.”
Read through the two definitions of how common law and how statute defines “consequential loss “ and you will see that it is a complicated field.
I would avoid using this term as it is very English-law specific, probably a high risk of error if used in a system based on Roman law.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:16:43 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

"knowledgeable"

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:21:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Just to make myself clear, you can use like for like where the meanings and implications are identical. This is not the case here. Using "consequential" here is an unsatisfactory solution in view of the possible readings.

Immaterial and indirect damage are distinguished in French in a way that cannot be represented accurately by English insurance terminology. Avoid it. Using ordinary English words for waht are specific French insurance terms will at least draw attention to the fact that there are not suitable direct word-for-word equivalents.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:22:24 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

"What" not waht (time for bed?)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:52:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

FURTHER THOUGHTS FOLLOWING TechLawDC's comments:

Thre appears to be some consensus on the use of "indirect damages" for the second term. The main problem seems to be "immatériels". I do not like "consequential" for the reasons explained in my post. Financial /economic loss is an accurate description of the type of loss but fails to account for the range covered by the French term; it suggests pure economic loss and is thus too restrictive in my view, although "any" might get round that one.

Intangible is an interesting idea. Better than my "immaterial", although it might be too wide as it could be read to include pain and suffering for example, which the French term does not include at all. Maybe "any financial and/or economic loss" would be good for the first one (dommages immatériels) and, avoiding "consequential loss" for the second one are more literal "indirect damage" (dommages indirects).



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:53:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

So BD Finch, I am coming round to agreeing with your suggestion for the first term after all! ;-)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2012-07-27 00:53:07 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Intangible damage cannot work for the first one. "Intangible damage" exists as a term and includes pain and suffering for example and does not include financial/economic loss. It cannot work for "dommages immatériels" as the meanings are quite different.