HADLEY VS. BAXENDALE

Advertisements

FACTS

The plaintiffs operated a mill that was forced to close due to a broken crankshaft in their steam engine. They contacted the engine’s manufacturer, W. Joyce & Co. (Joyce), who agreed to make a new shaft from the pattern of the old one. As a result, a Plaintiffs’ servant went to the office of the Defendants, common carriers, to arrange for the crankshaft to be delivered to Joyce. Plaintiffs’ servant informed the Defendants’ clerk that the mill had been shut down and that the shaft needed to be delivered as soon as possible. The clerk assured Plaintiffs’ servant that if the shaft was turned in by twelve o’clock on any given day, it would be delivered the next day. Plaintiffs handed up the shaft to Defendants before noon the next day. Plaintiffs handed up the shaft to Defendants before noon the next day. Due to the Defendants’ carelessness, the delivery to Joyce was delayed, and The plaintiffs did not get the fresh shaft for a couple of days after they should have and the mill remained closed. Hadley responded by filing a claim for damages against Baxendale. Hadley noted the lost earnings his company suffered as a result of Pickford and Co.’s infringement in his claim for damages.

ISSUES

• Whether the defendants were liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to loss of profits?

ARGUMENTS 

Hadley maintained that a non-breaching partner can seek damages to the extent that they naturally result from the breach or that the parties reasonably anticipated when they entered into the contract. But, the defendants failed to deliver the broken shaft to W. Joyce & Co. on the agreed-upon second day. Instead, they delayed the delivery by seven days. Due to the defendants’ negligence and delay, the plaintiffs incurred damages. The delay in receiving the new shaft led to a five-day disruption in their milling business, causing financial losses, including lost profits, expenses for buying flour, and wages for idle employees..

Baxendale & Ors contended that they could not be held liable for the damages since they were not made aware of the specific facts of the case, namely that the mill would be shut down until the new part came. They argued that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants were aware of the specific circumstances or consequences that would result from a delay in delivering the broken shaft.

JUDGEMENTS

The defendant was held not to be accountable for the plaintiff’s losses. The party that did not break the contract has a claim to the damages caused by the breach, or that were in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting. The defendant’s breach was the reason for the Plaintiffs’ loss of profits. This loss cannot be said to occur spontaneously as a result of such a breach under normal conditions. A miller may send a crankshaft to a third party for a number of reasons. There was no means of the defendant learning that their breach might result in a longer mill outage and a loss of earnings. Furthermore, Plaintiff never informed Defendants of the peculiar circumstances, and Defendants were unaware of them.

REFERENCES

• https://www.simplekanoon.com/contract-law/hadley-vs-baxendale-640/
• https://legaldictionary.net/hadley-v-baxendale/#google_vignette

Written by Monal an intern under legal vidhiya

Admin