Article 584 of the Civil Code establishes the foreseeability rule as a limitation on damages for breach of contract. However, its theoretical and practical applications face significant challenges. Existing research primarily adopts a functionalist approach, explaining the rule’s application by aligning institutional functions across different legal traditions. Yet, this approach emphasizes textual similarity while overlooking the deeper conflicts between the legal contexts of the transplanting and transplanted jurisdictions, leading to inconsistencies in interpretation and inherent paradoxes. In contrast, the culturalist approach argues that legal rules possess an intrinsic normative foundation, and theoretical adaptation is, in essence, a fusion of different legal contexts. Based on the theory of legal transplantation, this paper analyzes the challenges in applying the foreseeability rule, critiques the limitations of the functionalist approach, and explores possible adaptations and adjustments from a culturalist perspective.