Hadley v. Baxendale Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
Hadley v. Baxendale | 9 Exch. 341 (1854)
Hadley owned a corn mill in Gloucester, England. The mill used a steam engine manufactured by W. Joyce & Company, which we’ll call Joyce & Company for short, to grind corn into flour and cornmeal. One day, the engine’s crank shaft broke. To get the engine running again, Hadley needed to ship the broken shaft back to Joyce & Company, so an exact replica of the part could be made as a replacement.
Hadley contacted Pickford & Company, or Pickford, a common carrier owned by Baxendale. Hadley paid Pickford to ship the broken shaft to Joyce & Company as quickly as possible. Pickford promised to deliver the part by the next day. However, due to Pickford’s negligence, the delivery took much longer than promised. As a result, the mill remained closed for five additional days.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@kunjchauhan7745]

I have an exam tomorrow and this is what I need!

[@fatimahalmalki129]

did u graduate?

[@kunjchauhan7745]

@@fatimahalmalki129 no

[@aadilhussain4440]

@@kunjchauhan7745 bruh

[@oojrnl]

@@kunjchauhan7745💀💀💀

[@zecixx]

I think this is something that would be helpful even for employees and employers to know. It seems to me that while the employees should be held responsible for their mistakes, employers should also know that they cannot reasonably hold employees liable for the unforeseen damages of those mistakes.

[@ppp13524]

Very informative, just what I needed

[@lotusgrl444]

love this, super helpful and much easier to grasp

[@walidmaly3]

Finally I understand it :) Thanks a million

[@janveegoonawat6371]

Me tooo, mate , me toooo

[@szechunchan1171]

Amazing video. Thank you very much.

[@writercreativevirtuosity550]

Hadley v. Baxendale was ruled on in 1854. However, today's laws are more complex because companies have to meet compliance and quality standards and so do the sub contracting companies that they do business with.

[@billsullivan8812]

In Canada, this can be important in employment law. Supreme Court of Canada has said employers need to act in good faith in manner of termination of an employee. Since termination of contract by either side by providing reasonable notice is known by both sides at contract formation, it is "NOT" reasonably foreseeable damages for mental distress would result from termination. It "IS" reasonably foreseeable mental distress would result if dismissal carried out unfairly or in bad faith.

[@anakhanil]

Thank you

[@anushrinamarajesh8412]

So in the instant case what was the ordinary damages hadley could claim form Baxendale?

[@sumathisivakumar7612]

I think Baxendale is liable only for the loss arisen by delay in the delivery of crankshaft. Not for the loss of profit...

[@mehaksharma705]

What is the jurisdiction of this case?

[@iqrana123]

Plzz tell me the section #of case?

[@sumathisivakumar7612]

Sec 73 of the Indian Contract Act 1872

[@dennisrocket9825]

Andy Field