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.
- 156 Eng. Rep. 1220
Contributed by UnreasonableWoman
Delivery of mill shaft is delayed, but Plaintiff did not tell the Defendant carriers that their delay would cause a loss of profits at their mill.
Issue
Was it foreseeable that Plaintiff would lose profits from Defendant’s delay in delivering the shaft?
Conclusion
No – Defendant did not know nor have reason to know of any circumstance that would make his breach amount to a certain injury, so damages can’t be considered as part of the breach of contract.
LSD+ exclusive
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
Facts
- Plaintiff Hadley had a broken crankshaft at his mill that could only be repaired by sending the damaged part to the company so they could make an exact replica. Hadley used Defendant Baxendale’s courier service to send the part back. Baxendale said they would send it out the next day. However it wasn’t sent the next day and Hadley’s corn mill had to be shut down for a week in the meantime. Hadley sued for breach and tried to recover lost profits from the days the mill was closed.
- The jury found for Hadley.
LSD+ exclusive
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.
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