Hawkins v. McGee: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by DahliaPitchford (talk) to last revision by Lost Student) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|court=Supreme Court of New Hampshire | |||
|citation=84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929) | |||
|date=1929 | |||
|subject=Contracts | |||
}} | |||
'''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). | '''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). | ||
| Line 10: | Line 16: | ||
'''Judgment''': New trial ordered. | '''Judgment''': New trial ordered. | ||
Revision as of 20:56, February 1, 2020
| Hawkins v. McGee | |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
|---|---|
| Citation | 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929) |
| Date decided | 1929 |
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).
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.
