82,895
edits
Hadley v Baxendale: Difference between revisions
m
Amwelladmin moved page Hadley v Baxendale - Case Note to Hadley v Baxendale
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Hadley v Baxendale - Case Note to Hadley v Baxendale) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The great case of {{ | {{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 21: | Line 21: | ||
:''But, on the other hand, if these special circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking the contract, '''he, at the most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury which would arise generally, and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances, from such a breach of contract'''. For such loss would neither have flowed naturally from the breach of this contract in the great multitude of such cases occurring under ordinary circumstances, nor were the special circumstances, which, perhaps, would have made it a reasonable and natural consequence of such breach of contract, communicated to or known by the defendants. '' | :''But, on the other hand, if these special circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking the contract, '''he, at the most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury which would arise generally, and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances, from such a breach of contract'''. For such loss would neither have flowed naturally from the breach of this contract in the great multitude of such cases occurring under ordinary circumstances, nor were the special circumstances, which, perhaps, would have made it a reasonable and natural consequence of such breach of contract, communicated to or known by the defendants. '' | ||
[[Loss of profit]]s are not necessarily [[indirect loss]]es: {{cite|Polypearl | [[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]]. | |||