In this Article, Andrew Tettenborn discusses the ways in which law treats direct and consequential damages differently. An interesting read.
The term "consequential damages" seems to be a misnomer as even direct damages are "consequential". Consequential damages are synonymous to indirect damages. Initially contracting parties used the term "direct and consequential" damages to refer to damages that arose as a natural consequence of the breach or which could be supposed to have been in contemplation of the parties at the time of signing of contract. contracting parties usually excluded "indirect and consequential damages". Drafting errors ("indirect or consequential damages") probably made the courts to construe "consequential" to mean indirect. Thus, the term "consequential damages" has come to refer to those categories of loss that were not in contemplation of the parties or that could not be supposed to have been in contemplation of the parties at the time of entering into the contract.
See, HOTEL SERVICES LTD. v. HILTON INTERNATIONAL HOTELS (UK) LTD.
"I realise that some of my criticisms may be mistaken; but to refuse to criticize judgements for fear of being mistaken is to abandon criticism altogether... If any of my criticisms are found to be correct, the cause is served; and if any are found to be incorrect the very process of finding out my mistakes must lead to the discovery of the right reasons, or better reasons than I have been able to give, and the cause is served just as well." -Mr. HM Seervai, Preface to the 1st ed., Constitutional Law of India.