Legal Definitions - possibility on a possibility

The legal term "possibility on a possibility" refers to a situation where a particular legal outcome, right, or claim depends on a sequence of highly improbable or speculative events occurring one after another. Courts generally view such a chain of contingencies as too remote and uncertain to form the basis of a legal claim or to be considered valid in certain legal instruments, particularly in property law. It describes a scenario where one uncertain event must happen, and then, contingent upon that first event, a second uncertain event must also happen, making the overall likelihood of the final outcome extremely low and often too speculative for legal consideration.

Here are a few examples to illustrate this concept:

• Property Inheritance: Imagine a will that states, "My vacation home shall go to my niece, Emily. However, if Emily dies without having children, *and then* if her brother, David (who is currently childless), subsequently has a child who lives to the age of 25, *then* the vacation home shall pass to that child."

  This is a classic example of a possibility on a possibility. For David's future child to inherit the home, several uncertain events must occur in sequence: first, Emily must die without having children (a possibility). Second, *if* that happens, David (who currently has no children) must then have a child (another possibility). Third, *if* he has a child, that child must then survive to the age of 25 (a third possibility). The chain of these individually uncertain events makes the final transfer of the home to David's potential future child extremely remote and speculative, and a court might deem such a condition too uncertain to be legally enforceable.

• Claim for Damages: A small business sues a software developer for breach of contract, claiming that the developer's failure to deliver a custom application on time caused them to lose a significant potential profit. The business argues that *if* the software had been delivered on schedule, *then* they would have been able to launch a new product line two months earlier, *and then* that early launch would have allowed them to capture a specific market share before a competitor, *and then* this market share would have guaranteed a particular profit margin.

  In this scenario, the claim for lost profits relies on a "possibility on a possibility." The alleged damages are not a direct and certain consequence of the breach. Instead, they depend on a series of speculative events: timely software delivery leading to an early product launch (possibility 1), which *then* leads to capturing a specific market share over a competitor (possibility 2), which *then* leads to a guaranteed profit (possibility 3). A court might find these damages too remote and speculative because they are based on too many uncertain subsequent events rather than being a foreseeable and direct result of the contract breach.

• Insurance Coverage Dispute: A homeowner files an insurance claim for extensive water damage to their basement, arguing that *if* a small, unsealed window had not been left slightly ajar during a minor rain shower, *then* a tiny amount of water would not have seeped in, *and then* that tiny seepage would not have caused a wooden support beam to weaken, *and then* that weakened beam would not have collapsed during a subsequent, much heavier storm, leading to the extensive damage.

  Here, the homeowner's argument for coverage links the extensive damage to a "possibility on a possibility." The claim requires a specific chain of events: the window being ajar during a minor shower causing a tiny seepage (possibility 1), *then* that tiny seepage specifically weakening a support beam (possibility 2), *then* that weakened beam being the sole cause of the collapse during a *later, heavier* storm (possibility 3). An insurer might argue that the connection between the initial minor event and the ultimate extensive damage is too remote and speculative, especially if the heavier storm was the more direct and significant cause, or if other factors contributed to the beam's collapse. The claim relies on a highly specific and difficult-to-prove sequence of contingent events.