"Cost that was incurred" vs "Cost that had been incurred"

Question

"Cost that was incurred" vs "Cost that had been incurred"

Both phrases are correct, but they are used in slightly different contexts. "Cost that was incurred" is used to refer to a past cost without emphasizing the completion of the action, while "cost that had been incurred" is used to emphasize the completion of the action before another past event. The choice between them depends on the context and the level of emphasis on the completion of the cost.

Last Updated: March 30, 2024

This phrase is used to refer to a cost that was accumulated or accrued in the past without emphasizing the completion of the action.

Examples:

The cost that was incurred during the project was higher than expected.
We need to analyze the cost that was incurred last month.
The company is responsible for the cost that was incurred due to the delay.

Alternatives:

cost incurred
cost that has been incurred
cost that had been incurred
cost that will be incurred
cost that is incurred

This phrase is used to emphasize that a cost was completed or accrued before another past event. It highlights the completion of the action.

Examples:

The cost that had been incurred by the time the project was canceled was substantial.
She was unaware of the cost that had been incurred before she took over the project.
The report detailed the cost that had been incurred during the previous quarter.

Alternatives:

cost that was incurred
cost incurred
cost that has been incurred
cost that will be incurred
cost that is incurred

Answer 1

Cost that was incurred

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English.

Answer 2

Cost that had been incurred

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English.

"Cost that was incurred" vs "Cost that had been incurred"

Cost that was incurred

Cost that had been incurred

Related Comparisons