This complete reversal has not been achieved without numerous steps by the judiciary, some bold, some cautious, and the exploration of several paths of reasoning. The motivation has been to bring the law into line with the commercial realities of inflation and floating currencies. Under the rule in the Havanna case, if X, in country Y, contracts with Z, in England, he will only be able to pursue a remedy against Z in the English courts in sterling, even if the currency of the contract is that of country Y. As X would measure his loss in terms of country Y’s currency, it is clear that a devaluation of sterling between the date of Z’s breach and the conclusion of a successful remedy in the English courts by X will mean that, when the amount recovered is converted into units of country Y’s currency, Z will have recovered far less than his actual loss. It is tempting to suggest that prior to 1961 the stability of sterling as a currency belittled this problem, but the substantial body of case law existing prior to that date obviates the suggestion. Since the Havanna decision, however, the fluctuations in sterling have meant that far more people in Z’s position will have suffered substantial losses from the operation of the rule.