Editing Hawkins v. McGee

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=New Hampshire Supreme Court
|citation=84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929)
|date=1929
|subject=Contracts
|case_treatment=No
|facts=Defendant Dr. McGee promised Plaintiff Hawkins that his hand would be a "one hundred percent good hand" after a skin graft operation. The hand was unsatisfactory after the operation (it became covered in hair).
|procedural_history=The jury was instructed to award damages based on restitution damages (the difference between Hawkin's prior hand and his now-hairy hand).
|comments=*"[https://www.findlaw.com/legal/law-students/surviving-law-school/hawkins-v--mcgee-case-summary.html Case of the Hairy Hand]." It is famous for its mention in the movie and novel ''The Paper Chase.''
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/hawkins-v-mcgee
|case_text_source=Quimbee video summary
}}
}}
'''Issue''': Was what the Dr. said really a promise? Were the instructions to the Jury proper?

'''Holding''': Yes, it was part of a valid contract. No, jury instructions were improper.

'''Reasons''': The jury instructions should have specified expectation damages (the difference between a perfect hand as promised and the actual condition of the hand).

'''Judgment''':  New trial ordered.
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 |court=New Hampshire Supreme Court
 |citation=84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929)
-|date=June 4, 1929
+|date=1929
 |subject=Contracts
-|facts=When he was 11 years old, Hawkins got his hand burned by an electrical wire in the kitchen. As a result, his hand became burned & scarred.
+|case_treatment=No
+|facts=Defendant Dr. McGee promised Plaintiff Hawkins that his hand would be a "one hundred percent good hand" after a skin graft operation. The hand was unsatisfactory after the operation (it became covered in hair).
-Defendant Dr. McGee promised Plaintiff Hawkins that his hand would be a "100% good hand" after a skin graft operation. The hand was unsatisfactory after the operation (the palm became covered in hair).
+|procedural_history=The jury was instructed to award damages based on restitution damages (the difference between Hawkin's prior hand and his now-hairy hand).
-|procedural_history=Hawkins sued McGee for breach of contract.
+|comments=*"[https://www.findlaw.com/legal/law-students/surviving-law-school/hawkins-v--mcgee-case-summary.html Case of the Hairy Hand]." It is famous for its mention in the movie and novel ''The Paper Chase.''
-The jury was instructed to award damages based on restitution damages (the difference between Hawkins's prior hand and his now-hairy hand).
-The jury awarded $3,000 ([https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=US%243000+%281929+US+dollars%29 ~ $52,000 in 2023]) damages to Hawkins. The judge demanded that Hawkins get no more than $500.
-|issues=Was what the Dr. said really a promise? Were the instructions to the Jury proper?
-What money damages would be appropriate to award Hawkins?
-|holding=Yes, it was part of a valid contract. No, jury instructions were improper.
-The New Hampshire Supreme Court decided:
-(awarded damages) = (value of perfect hand promised) - (value of current hand + incidental damages)
-The jury shouldn't have awarded damages for the pain & suffering of Hawkins.
-|judgment=New trial ordered.
-|reasons=The jury instructions should have specified expectation damages (the difference between a perfect hand as promised and the actual condition of the hand).
-|comments=*"[https://www.findlaw.com/legal/law-students/surviving-law-school/hawkins-v--mcgee-case-summary.html Case of the Hairy Hand]." It is famous for its mention in the movie and novel ''The Paper Chase'' & ''On the Basis of Sex''.
 |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
 |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/hawkins-v-mcgee
-|source_type=Video summary
+|case_text_source=Quimbee video summary
-|case_text_source=Quimbee
-}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
-|link=https://casetext.com/case/hawkins-v-mcgee
-|case_text_source=CaseText
 }}
 }}
+'''Issue''': Was what the Dr. said really a promise? Were the instructions to the Jury proper?
+'''Holding''': Yes, it was part of a valid contract. No, jury instructions were improper.
+'''Reasons''': The jury instructions should have specified expectation damages (the difference between a perfect hand as promised and the actual condition of the hand).
+'''Judgment''':  New trial ordered.