82,903
edits
Hadley v Baxendale: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cn}}The great case of {{citer|Hadley|Baxendale|1854| | {{cn}}The great case of {{citer|Hadley|Baxendale|1854|156 ER|145}}, on the types of loss available in a {{t|contract}}, and therefore questions of [[direct loss|direct]] versus [[indirect loss]], [[causation]] and [[remoteness of damage]]. | ||
===Facts=== | ===Facts=== | ||
Hadley operated a steam mill in Gloucestershire. Its crankshaft was broken. It arranged with W. Joyce & Co. in Greenwich for a new one. Joyce asked Hadley to send the broken one to them so they could fit it correctly to the other parts. Hadley contracted Baxendale (trading as “Pickford & Co.”) to transport the broken crankshaft to Joyce, “and in consideration thereof the defendants then promised the plaintiffs to convey the said broken shaft from Gloucester to Greenwich, and there on the said second day to deliver the same to the said W. Joyce & Co. for the plaintiffs”. | Hadley operated a steam mill in Gloucestershire. Its crankshaft was broken. It arranged with W. Joyce & Co. in Greenwich for a new one. Joyce asked Hadley to send the broken one to them so they could fit it correctly to the other parts. Hadley contracted Baxendale (trading as “Pickford & Co.”) to transport the broken crankshaft to Joyce, “and in consideration thereof the defendants then promised the plaintiffs to convey the said broken shaft from Gloucester to Greenwich, and there on the said second day to deliver the same to the said W. Joyce & Co. for the plaintiffs”. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Well, you’ll not be surprised to hear that this didn’t happen, and the defendants, “by some neglect” didn’t deliver the crankshaft until the ''seventh'' day after they received it from Hadley. Hadley thus was delayed in getting the new crankshaft, and thereby lost the profits it would otherwise have received. | Well, you’ll not be surprised to hear that this didn’t happen, and the defendants, “by some neglect” didn’t deliver the crankshaft until the ''seventh'' day after they received it from Hadley. Hadley thus was delayed in getting the new crankshaft, and thereby lost the profits it would otherwise have received. | ||
The | The plaintiffs argued that these damages were too [[remote]]. | ||
===Judgment=== | ===Judgment=== | ||
Alderson B, in an admirably short judgment, explained thus (our emphasis and paragraphage) that there are normal direct losses, which are available to every manjack: | Alderson B, in an admirably short judgment, explained thus (our emphasis and paragraphage) that there are normal direct losses, which are available to every manjack: | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
[[Loss of profit]]s are not necessarily [[indirect loss]]es: {{cite|Polypearl Limited|E.ON Energy Solutions Limited|2014|EWHC|3045}} | [[Loss of profit]]s are not necessarily [[indirect loss]]es: {{cite|Polypearl Limited|E.ON Energy Solutions Limited|2014|EWHC|3045}} | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Consequential loss]] aka [[indirect loss]] | |||
*Why [[indemnity]] claims can circumvent contractual rules on [[foreseeability]] and [[remoteness of damage]]. | |||