Dashboard
Quick Access
My Profile
Recent Decisions
Graphs
Search
LSD Proofreader
Articles & Wisdom
Research
Law Schools
Rankings
Search
Articles & Wisdom
Applicants
Admissions Graphs
Recent Decisions
Soft Tiers
LSAT
Students
LSD Briefs
Student Loans
Articles & Wisdom
Creep a rando
LSD+
Sign in
Warning
Info
๐ Okapi13, SLS '24 |
0
0
Hydraform Products Corp. v. American Steel & Aluminum Corp.
127 N.H. 187 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1985)
Help us make LSD better
Tags:ย
Consequential Damages
tl;dr:
Lost profits from sale must be certain, not speculative, to serve as a basis for consequential damages.
IRAC
Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion
๐คฏ High points ๐คฏ
Key points contributed by students on LSD
Sign in to share
Facts & Holding
Facts:
Plaintiff Hydraform contracted with Defendant American Steel to purchase enough...
Holding:
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed that Hydraform was...
Hydraform Products Corp. v. American Steel & Aluminum Corp.
Chat for Hydraform Products Corp. v. American Steel & Aluminum Corp.
Brief
General
>T14
Big mad
DMs
Visit a user's profile start a DM.
DMs will become an
LSD+
exclusive after the beta testing period.
brief-115
๐
Chat vibe: 0
๐
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you