Hawkin v Msgee

Plaintiff Hawkins got serve burn to his right hand resulting from contact with electric wire.
And a doctor Msgee, the defendant proposes a operation which he guarantee to make the
hand of the plaintiff 100 percent cured and as good as new. The plaintiff agrees to the
operation. However, the operation fails which cause the plaintiff hand to grow hair on the
palm. The plaintiff sue the defendant msgeee for breaching the contract.
Issue: whether there is damage when the plaintiff promise to make the plaintiff hand to be
100% cure but fail to do so.
Houlding. Yes

Tonish v Tomas
sunflower farmer dennis tongish entered into a contract with a Decatur cooperative
association in which he promised to grow 117 acre of sunflower seeds the co-op promised to
pay 13 per hundred weight for large seeds and eight dollars per hundred weight for small
seeds
Tangish promised to deliver the crop in thirds on december 31st march 31st and may 31st the
co-op held another contract to deliver the seeds to bambino bean and seed it charged
bambino a 55 cent per hundred weight handling fee which constituted the co-op's only
anticipated profit tangish delivered some seeds to the co-op

in the fall due to bad weather and a short crop the market price of sunflower seeds doubled in
January tangish informed the co-op that he was not going to deliver any more sunflower
seeds tangish then sold 83 000 pounds of seeds to danny thomas for twenty dollars per
hundred weight thomas only paid for half of the seeds tongue is sued to recover the balance
due which thomas later paid in court meanwhile the co-op intervened to seek damages for
tangish's breach of contract the trial court held that tangish had breached his contract with the
co-op it awarded the co-op the calculated loss of handling charges its expected profits as
damages 83 000 pounds of seeds at 55 cents per hundred weight amounted to about 455
dollars the co-op appealed this award arguing that state law entitled it to collect as damages
the difference between the market price paid by thomas and the contract price which would
have been about five thousand one hundred dollars the court of appeals agreed it reversed the
trial court's judgment and sent the case back to recalculate the damages thongish appealed to
the kansas supreme court.

Handley Vs Baxendale

Hadley owned a corn mill in Gloucester, England. The mill used a steam engine
manufactured by W. Joyce & Company, which we’ll call Joyce & Company for short, to
grind corn into flour and cornmeal. One day, the engine’s crank shaft broke. To get the
engine running again, Hadley needed to ship the broken shaft back to Joyce & Company, so
an exact replica of the part could be made as a replacement.

Hadley contacted Pickford & Company, or Pickford, a common carrier owned by Baxendale,
the defendant. Hadley paid Pickford to ship the broken shaft to Joyce & Company as quickly
as possible. Pickford promised to deliver the part by the next day. However, due to Pickford’s
negligence, the delivery took much longer than promised. As a result, the mill remained
closed for five additional days.

Hadley sued Baxendale for breach of contract and asked the court for damages, including his
lost profits from the five days the mill was closed.

At trial, Baxendale argued that the lost profits were unrelated to the shipping contract and
shouldn’t be awarded.
The jury sided with Hadley, and the lower court ordered Baxendale to pay for the mill’s lost
profits. Baxendale argued that the lower court judge’s instructions misdirected the jury,
leading the jurors to reach an unjust conclusion. So, Baxendale asked for a new trial. The
Court of Exchequer Chamber agreed to review the case.

The issue: whether the defendant must pay for all damages including the lost profit that
result from the breach, even when the defendant did not know that the delay would cause the
lose of plaintiff profit.

The Exchequer Chamber held that a breaching party is only liable for damages that were
reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was made. Therefore, Baxendale wasn’t liable
for the lost profits. This is because, when Hadley hired Pickford to ship the broken shaft,
Pickford had no reason to know that the mill would lose revenue if shipment was delayed. It
was true that Pickford did, in fact, breach the contract by failing to deliver the shaft as
quickly as it promised, and that delay directly caused Hadley’s lost profits. Nevertheless,
Pickford had no reason to know it was causing that kind of damage Hadley asked Pickford to
ship the shaft as soon as possible, but he didn’t specifically say that his mill would remain
closed until the shaft was delivered. Customers often ask carriers to ship packages quickly.
This statement alone wasn’t enough to alert Pickford of the possibility for lost profits. After
all, as the court pointed out, the mill may have had a spare shaft to use in the meantime.
Because Pickford had no reason to foresee Hadley’s lost revenue, the court concluded that
Baxendale wasn’t liable for the lost profits. Instead, Baxendale could only be liable for the
damages that were reasonably foreseeable. The Exchequer Chamber ordered a new trial and
advised the lower court to instruct the jury to exclude any damages that were unforeseeable at
the time the contract was made when estimating the total damages from the breach. The
English case of Hadley v. Baxendale had a very strong influence on the development of
American contract law. The principle that contract damages must be limited to those
reasonably foreseeable at the time of contracting ultimately became a well-known staple in
the common law of the United States.
Holding: No
 Chicago Coliseum Club V Dempsey
contract law ordinarily seeks to place an injured party in the same position the party would
have been inhad the contract been performed however if expectation damages can't be
calculated with a reasonable degree of certainty courts often attempt to return the injured
party back to the party's pre-contractual position in chicago coliseum club versus Dempsey
the appellate court of illinois was asked to decide what type of reliance damages were
recoverable by a party in a breach of contract case that forever changed the history of boxing

in march 1926 jack dempsey the world heavyweight champion boxer contracted with the
chicago coliseumclub to fight harry wills in a heavyweight title boxing match chicago
coliseum paid dempsey 10$ to sign the contract pursuant to the contract chicago coliseum
agreed to promote the fight which was to occur in september 1926. Additionally dempsey
agreed not to engage in any boxing matches until after the fight with wells was over dempsey
also agreed to undergo a health examination prior to the fight chicago coliseum paid an
architect 300 to plan the event in july 1926 chicago coliseum reached out to Dempsey to
schedule the health examination dempsey replied that he was too busy training for his
upcoming fight with gene tunney to undergo an examination and that he didn't believe there
was a contract chicago coliseum then sued dempsey in indiana superior court seeking to
enjoin dempsey from fighting tunney subsequently chicago coliseum sued dempsey in the
circuit court of cook county in illinois for breach of contract in the suit chicago coliseum
argued that it was entitled to four categories of damages specifically chicago coliseum argued
it was entitled to lost profits expenses incurred before the contract was signed expenses
incurred in filing suit in Indiana and expenses incurred after the contract was signed but
before dempsey's breach the trial court disagreed overruling most of the requested damages
chicago coliseum then appealed to the illinois appellate court

Freund v washington square press

in the 1974 case of freund versus washington square press philip freund a drama teacher
wrote a book on modern drama washington square press agreed to publish and sell freund's
book washington square was to pay freund a two thousand dollar advance upon receipt of his
manuscript and royalties based on the number of copies sold washington square retained the
right to terminate the contract if it considered the manuscript unpublishable but only within
60 days after receiving the manuscript freund delivered the manuscript and washington
square paid the advance but washington square then merged with another publisher and
ceased publishing hardcover books washington square didn't exercise its termination option
but it refused to publish freund's book in any form freund sued washington square for breach
of contract the trial court found that Washington square had breached a valid contract freund
then sought to recover damages for the delay in his academic promotion lost royalties and the
anticipated cost of publishing the book himself the trial court awarded freund only the cost of
publishing the book himself based on an expert's testimony regarding the cost of self-
publication the court awarded freund ten thousand dollars a divided appellate division
affirmed the damages award washington square appealed to the new york court of appeals the
highest court in the state