112. Certainty of harm
(1)  Compensation is due only for harm, including future harm, that is established with a reasonable degree of certainty.
(2)  Compensation may be due for the loss of a chance in proportion to the probability of its occurrence.
(3)  Where the amount of damages cannot be established with a sufficient degree of certainty, the assessment is at the discretion of the Court.
113. Foreseeability of harm
The non-performing party is liable only for harm which it foresaw or could reasonably have foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract as being likely to result from its non- performance.
114. Proof of harm in case of replacement transaction
Where the aggrieved party has terminated the contract and has made a replacement transaction within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner it may recover the difference between the contract price and the price of the replacement transaction as well as damages for any further harm.
115. Proof of harm by current price
(1)  Where the aggrieved party has terminated the contract and has not made a replacement transaction but there is a current price for the performance contracted for, it may recover the difference between the contract price and the price current at the time the contract is terminated as well as damages for any further harm.
(2)  Current price is the price generally charged for goods delivered or services rendered in comparable circumstances at the place where the contract should have been performed or, if there is no current price at that place, the current price at such other place that appears reasonable to take as a reference.
– for the begning write about difc and its courts and what it is and how its diffrent from UAE courts etc 
– explain all the topics provided: 112. Certainty of harm, 113. Foreseeability of harm, 114. Proof of harm in case of replacement transaction, and 115. Proof of harm by current price. 
– show the difference in the application in UAE courts and DIFC courts               
– 5-7 pages