Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSD+

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Start your free 14-day trial today. Read as much content as you want during your trial, and you can cancel any time and keep access for the full 14 days.

Hadley v. Baxendale

- 156 Eng. Rep 145

Contributed by Jawshu

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.

ICRA

Issue

Is a defendant who breaches a contract liable for unforeseen damages owing to special circumstances that were not communicated by the plaintiff to the defendant?

Conclusion

No – the defendant is only liable for foreseeable damages and damages resulting from special circumstances that were clearly communicated, so Baxendale is not liable for Hadley’s lost profits.

LSD+ exclusive

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to this brief's summary.
Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Rule

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Analysis

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

Brief Facts & Holding

Facts

  • Hadley (plaintiff), a miller, sued Baxendale (defendant) for failing to deliver a crank shaft on time, resulting in lost profits to Hadley. Hadley operated a milling business in Gloucester, England. A crank shaft at the mill broke, bringing the operation to a halt. Hadley needed to ship the broken shaft to Greenwich so that the engineers there could use it as a pattern to manufacture a new one. Hadley went to a shipping company owned by Baxendale and was told that, if the shaft was sent by noon any day, it would make it to Greenwich the following day. The next day, Hadley took the shaft to the Baxendale shipper before noon and shipped it. However, shipping was delayed due to neglect by the shipper. As a result, Hadley did not receive the new shaft until several days after they should have, causing lost profits. Hadley brought suit against Baxendale, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £25 in damages, including lost profits. Baxendale appealed.

LSD+ exclusive

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to this brief's summary.
Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Holding

  • Hey! This is the holding for Pennoyer v. Neff. It probably isn't the holding for the brief you're looking at. Join LSD+ for full access.
  • A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached to satisfy an unrelated claim, despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
  • A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached as the basis for the suit (e.g., to quiet title), despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
  • An individual is sued who is a resident of the state, or who has been served with process while physically located within the state.
  • jurisdiction - Neff is neither a resident, nor was served while within the state. Service by publication may be valid for an
  • proceeding, where the owner would be made aware of the suit due to their property being seized, but not for
  • jurisdiction - the action was on the basis of a suit to receive payment owed, and did not relate directly to a property within the state.
  • jurisdiction, as the Oregon property was not attached to the initial suit, but rather was added in after the suit happened - note that Neff did not even purchase the property until after the suit had concluded.
  • Accordingly, the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction over the initial suit between Neff and his lawyer.
  • Enforcement of a judgment without jurisdiction denies due process!
  • Additionally, although judgments rendered by other states are entitled to full faith and credit, if that state did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, it loses such entitlement.
Case Deep Dive

Join LSD+

Energize your law school studying with LSD+ for only $19 per month. Join over 40,000 applicants who have used LSD to crush admissions and empower yourself to crush 1L and beyond. With LSD+, you’ll get immediate access to many nice things including:

  • Full-access to over 50,000 case briefs
  • LSD’s DeepDive tool to read the case at different levels of summarization
  • Highlight-to-define to get easy to understand definitions in real time as you study
  • Social learning with LSD community case high points
  • Instantly brief over 6,000,000 cases with LSD’s cutting edge AI briefing tool
  • 14-day free trial

Warning

Info

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
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.