Hawkins v. McGee
|Hawkins v. McGee|
|Court||Supreme Court of New Hampshire|
|Citation||84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (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.