of this case, where Powell’s breach of the contract and its warranties were the direct cause of HP’s damages. We hold that HP’s costs of repair to the unit that Powell serviced and destroyed are direct damages resulting from Powell’s breach. 2. Costs for Relating to Temporary Transformer: Damage Elements (d) & (e) Powell suggests that all of HP’s damages constitute “loss of use” damages and are therefore consequential. While HP’s costs relating to the repair of transformer B are not loss of use damages, HP’s decision to install a temporary transformer and use it while transformer B was being repaired are lost use damages. Like lost profits, lost use damages are frequently, but not categorically, consequential in nature. See Tennessee Gas Pipeline, 2008 WL 3876141 at *8, 10 (<HOLDING>). Here, we conclude that HP’s costs relating to
holding that foreseeable consequential damages are to be considered in valuing loss holding that provision barring recovery of consequential damages did not necessarily bar all loss of use damages but damages for loss of use of money were consequential holding that consequential damages are not to be considered holding that the plaintiffs attempted to recover lost profits which under the facts of the case were consequential damages holding that plaintiffs consequential damages were too speculative because no evidence connected damages to defendants breach of contract