Discusses the events of "Robertson Group (Construction) Ltd v Amey Miller Joint Venture" ([2005] CSOH 60, unreported). Amey Miller (AM) subcontracted building work to Robertson Construction (R). R started work under the terms of a letter of intent, which was limited to £500 000. This limit was continuously exceeded, until the work done reached a total of £5m. At this point, the arrangement came to an end. R's attempt to claim overheads and profits was resisted by AM, who argued that R was entitled only to direct costs and directly incurred losses. The court rejected AM's argument; it said if the word loss did not cover general overheads and an element of profit, a contractor would have to support corporate overheads from other sources of income. If overheads and profits were not recoverable, the failure to earn such sums from turnover could be described as loss. R was entitled to direct costs and directly incurred losses, which inevitably included an element of profit.