Hawkins v. McGee: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
|subject=Contracts
|subject=Contracts
|case_treatment=No
|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).
|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.
|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).
 
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=Hawkins sued McGee for breach of contract.
 
The jury was instructed to award damages based on restitution damages (the difference between Hawkins's prior hand and his now-hairy hand).
|issues=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.
|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.''
|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
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
Line 16: Line 24:
}}
}}
}}
}}
'''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.

Revision as of 14:38, July 4, 2023

Hawkins v. McGee
Court New Hampshire Supreme Court
Citation 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929)
Date decided June 4, 1929

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.

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

Hawkins sued McGee for breach of contract.

The jury was instructed to award damages based on restitution damages (the difference between Hawkins's prior hand and his now-hairy hand).

Issues

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.

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

Resources