Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Hadley v Baxendale: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
m (DeRien moved page Hadley v. Baxendale to Hadley v Baxendale: common name) |
No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=February 23, 1854 | |date=February 23, 1854 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|facts=Plaintiff operated a flour mill. Due to a break of the crack shaft of the steam engine that ran the plant, they needed a replacement. | |||
*Hadley = plaintiff = owner of a corn mill in Gloucester, England in the 1850s | |||
*Baxendale = defendant = a shipping company | |||
*Pickford & Co. = "Pickford", a shipping company = a subsidiary of Baxendale | |||
*Joyce & Co. = "Joyce" = an engineering company in Greenwich | |||
*Hadley contacted Joyce Pickford to ship the broken crank shaft of its mill to Joyce so that a new replica could be produced. | |||
*Pickford delayed shipping the crank shaft to Joyce. | |||
|procedural_history=Hadley sued the parent shipping company Baxendale for breach of contract. He asked for [[damages]] for the lost profits because of the shipping delay. | |||
The jury sided with Hadley. | |||
|issues=Must a party that breaches a contract pay for '''unforeseeable damages''' that result from a breach? | |||
How much damages should be awarded? | |||
|holding=Baxendale is only liable for reasonably foreseeable damages at the time the contract was made. Consequently, Baxendale (the shipping company) isn't liable for the lost profits. | |||
The amount of injury which would ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under the special circumstances known and communicated to the other party. The loss of profits were a special circumstance that couldn't be known by the defendant, so they can't be considered in determining damages. | |||
|judgment=New trial is ordered | |||
|reasons=Defendant [Baxendale] should be liable for damages that are foreseen at the time of the creation of the contract. If the potential damages are unforeseen, the defendant cannot be liable for them. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/foreign/united-kingdom/9-ex-ch-341-1854.html | |link=https://law.justia.com/cases/foreign/united-kingdom/9-ex-ch-341-1854.html | ||
|case_text_source=Justia | |case_text_source=Justia | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/hadley-v-baxendale | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:56, October 24, 2023
Hadley v Baxendale | |
Court | Exchequer of Pleas |
---|---|
Citation | 156 Eng. Rep. 145, 9 Exch. 341 |
Date decided | February 23, 1854 |
Facts
Plaintiff operated a flour mill. Due to a break of the crack shaft of the steam engine that ran the plant, they needed a replacement.
- Hadley = plaintiff = owner of a corn mill in Gloucester, England in the 1850s
- Baxendale = defendant = a shipping company
- Pickford & Co. = "Pickford", a shipping company = a subsidiary of Baxendale
- Joyce & Co. = "Joyce" = an engineering company in Greenwich
- Hadley contacted Joyce Pickford to ship the broken crank shaft of its mill to Joyce so that a new replica could be produced.
- Pickford delayed shipping the crank shaft to Joyce.
Procedural History
Hadley sued the parent shipping company Baxendale for breach of contract. He asked for damages for the lost profits because of the shipping delay.
The jury sided with Hadley.Issues
Must a party that breaches a contract pay for unforeseeable damages that result from a breach?
How much damages should be awarded?Holding
Baxendale is only liable for reasonably foreseeable damages at the time the contract was made. Consequently, Baxendale (the shipping company) isn't liable for the lost profits.
The amount of injury which would ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under the special circumstances known and communicated to the other party. The loss of profits were a special circumstance that couldn't be known by the defendant, so they can't be considered in determining damages.Judgment
New trial is ordered
Reasons
Defendant [Baxendale] should be liable for damages that are foreseen at the time of the creation of the contract. If the potential damages are unforeseen, the defendant cannot be liable for them.