Procedural history: does the decision itself appear to be sustainable on the facts of the hadley case although the rule of hadley v baxendale has been . In 1854, the english exchequer court delivered the landmark case of hadley v baxendale that case provided, for the first time in the common law, a defined rule regarding the limitations on recovery of damages for breach of contract it has been widely celebrated as a landmark in the law of . Facts of the case procedural history analysis questions of law i would then comment on the ratio decidendi established by the court in hadley v baxendale .
The house of lords’ decision in the achilleas placed a question mark over the english contract law rules on remoteness of damage and the classic statement of those rules in hadley v baxendale as to the extent of the losses recoverable for breach of contract. In the case of star polaris llc (star) v hhic-phil inc (hhic)  ewhc 2941, the high court departed from the usual interpretation of 'consequential and special losses' as falling within the second limb of hadley v baxendale (1854) 9 ex 341. Baxendale: hadley owned and operated a mill when the mill’s crank shaft broke hadley entered into a contract with baxendale, to deliver the shaft to an engineering company on an agreed upon date. Hadley v baxendale read this case summary summary of hadley v baxendale, 9 exch 341, 156 eng rep 145 (1854) facts a shaft in hadley’s (p) mill broke rendering the mill inoperable hadley hired baxendale (d) to transport the broken mill shaft to an engineer in greenwich so that he could make a duplicate.
By focusing on one central case in its historical setting i hope in this arti- cle to provide an experiential supplement to the legal reader's steady diet of logic3 my theme is that hadley v baxendale can usefully be analyzed as a judicial invention in an age of industrial invention after describing the facts and the holding of hadley v. Case study - hadley vs baxendale save hadley vs baxendale for later a brief history of the twenty-first century summary of hadley v baxendale facts. Baxendale is one of the most famous cases in history case: parties: hadley v baxendale (1854, eng) [pp 206-210] plaintiff - hadley defendant - baxendale facts: the plaintiff, hadley, operated a mill the crankshaft of the mill broke, forcing the mill to shut down hadley contracted with the defendant, baxendale, to deliver the crankshaft to engineers for repair by a certain date. Hadley v baxendale, 9 exch 341, 156 eng rep 145 (1854) is a classic contract law case that deals with the extent of consequential damages recoverable after a breach of contract, as related to the foreseeability of the losses.
Hadley v baxendale 9 exch 341 (1854) is a leading english contract law case which laid down the principle that consequential damages will be awarded for breach of contract only if it was foreseeable at the time of contracting that this type of damage would result from the breach. Hadley v baxendale and other common law borrowings from the civil law the history of common law borrowing case of hadley v baxendale1 that case provided, . Hadley v baxendale (1854) 9 ex 341 the foundation of the modern law of damages, both in india and england is to be found in the judgement in the case hadley v baxendale (1854) 9 ex 341 it is a very important leading case, in which the basic principle governing the fixation of the quantum of damages was settled. Baxendale1 that case provided, for the first time in the common law, a defined rule regarding the limitations on recovery of damages for breach of contract. As it happens, the house of lords did not think that the letter and the spirit of hadley v baxendale did diverge in the achilleas as to what the result of the case should be.
Hadley sued for the profits he lost due to baxendale's late delivery, and the jury awarded hadley damages of £25 baxendale appealed, contending that he did not know that hadley would suffer any particular damage by reason of the late delivery. Hadley v baxendale court of exchequer england - 1854 facts: p had a milling business p's mill suffered a broken crank shaft and needed to send the broken shaft to an engineer so a new one could be made. Hadley v baxendale  ewhc j70 is a leading english contract law case it sets the basic rule to determine consequential damages from a breach of contract : a breaching party is liable for all losses that the contracting parties should have foreseen, but is not liable for any losses that the breaching party could not have foreseen on the information available to him.
Hadley vs baxendale case: the court considers the problem of compensation for a loss the plaintiff managing the mill collided with a crash of the crankshaft and took . The crankshaft running hadley's (plaintiff's) mill broke, and had to be sent back to the manufacturers as a pattern so that a new one could be made one of hadley's people went to baxendale's (defendant's) shipping offices and inquired about the cost and time involved in sending the shaft. Hadley v baxendale  ewhc j70 is a leading english contract law case it sets the leading rule to determine consequential damages from a breach of contract: a breaching party is liable for all losses that the contracting parties should have foreseen, but is not liable for any losses that the breaching party could not have foreseen on the information available to him. This is what the hadley v baxendale doctrine does it tells the first buyer: if you don't disclose the information about damages, you will only get $16,000, not $32,000 this rule would of course also apply in case a, where the buyer does not have the information about damages.
Baxendale is an english contract law case which made a major contribution to the legal doctrine of foreseeability as we will see, the plaintiff hadley (who was the defendant in the appellate case) suffered considerably in lost profits as a consequence of the poor performance of baxendale. Hadley v baxendale the crankshaft broke in the claimant’s mill he engaged the services of the defendant to deliver the crankshaft to the place where it was to be repaired and to subsequently return it after it had been repaired. Hadley v baxendale | 9 ex 341 | february 23, 1854 print bookmark case font settings clone and annotate sign out sign so, in a case of illegal capture, mr .