Warning

Info

🏅 Jawshu, CLS '24 |

0 0

Hadley v. Baxendale

156 Eng. Rep 145 (1854)

tl;dr: A miller sent in a crank shaft for replacement and was told by the shipper that it would be delivered the next day. The shipper’s delay caused lost profits to the miller, but the shipper was not held liable for lost profits.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

Facts & Holding

Facts:Hadley (plaintiff), a miller, sued Baxendale (defendant) for failing to...

Holding:Where two parties have made a contract which one of...

Hadley v. Baxendale

Chat for Hadley v. Baxendale
brief-59
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you