1. Beit Din generally lacks authority to collect for indirect damages resulting from the aggressor's actions. Nevertheless, the aggressor has a moral obligation to pay for intentional indirect damages, while is absolved from paying for unintentional indirect damages [Choshen Mishpat 386, Imrei Yosher].

2. At times, Beit Din even has the authority to collect for indirect natural progressions of the aggressor's action or inaction if the damages are due to a clear and imminent result of the aggressor's action, provided the prescribed indirect damages is of common occurrence [Sha"ch ibid.]

Consider the following three scenarios:

3. A verbally committed to meet B in court on a particular day. B paid out money to get there. A was negligent and did not show. A must compensate B for the reasonable and foreseeable expenditures he/she spent as a result of relying on A's word [Choshen Mishpat §14: 5 Rema].

4. A verbally committed to participate in the wedding B was arranging. B relied upon A's commitment and duly paid out fair money to accommodate A. A was negligent and did not show. A must compensate B for his/her expenses [Chavos Yair 168].

5. Sara and Avi agreed to become engaged. Avi relied on Sara's commitment and bought gifts, threw a party etc. Sara did not subsequently find out critical information about Avi that should warrant her to break the engagement. Instead, she backed out due to commitment issues, Sara must compensate Avi for the expenses deemed within the norm, that he spent as a result of relying upon her verbal commitment [Shulchan Aruch Even Ha'Ezer §50]

Explanation: In the three scenarios, the incurred costs are natural progressions of the verbal commitments. By backing out or failing to show, the aggressors knew that the prior expenditures would automatically go to waste. We view their action or inaction as though they intentionally caused clear and imminent financial losses [ibid. Taz 5].

Breach of verbal contracts is categorized as a common occurrence, the likes of which Beit Din has the right to demand payment from the offender [Choshen Mishpat §14: 5 Biur HaGra 30].

Consider the following scenario:

6. A purchased seeds from B. A subsequently paid workers to sow them. They turned out to be infertile. As B did not know that the seeds were defective at the sale-time, A's loss is viewed as unintentional and indirectly resulting from B.

While A may demand compensation for the seeds he/she may not demand compensation from B for his/her workers [Choshen Mishpat 232: 34, Even Ha'Ezer §50Taz 5]

Explanation: As the seller was unaware that the seeds were infertile, when he sold them, the loss was not clear and imminent.