Hadley v. Baxendale is the classic case of contract law, which gave the rule that considerable harm, could be recuperated just if; at the time the agreement was made . The facts of the case are the petitioners, Mr Hadley and an alternate, were mill operators and mealmen and cooperated in an association as proprietors of the City Steam-Mills in Gloucester. They cleaned grain, ground it into dinner and dressed it into flour, sharps, and wheat. A crankshaft of a steam motor at the factory had broken and Hadley organized to have another one made by W. Joyce & Co. in Greenwich. When the new crankshaft could be made, W. Joyce & Co. obliged that the broken crankshaft be sent to them keeping in mind the end goal to guarantee that the new crankshaft …show more content…
Baxendale in terms of incentives and information. Contract may leads to inefficiency, if it has imperfect information about the parties situation. For example, it is efficient for the promisor to take any precaution to avoid breach that costs less than the value of the promise to the promisee. At the time of contracting, however, the promisor may not know the value of the promise to the promisee. Indeed, during negotiations the promisee has incentives to conceal the true value ofthe potential promise in order to get a better price. As a result, the promisor may take inefficiently few precautions to avoid breach. By limiting the promisee's damages, however, to those that are reasonably foreseeable, the rule in Hadley creates incentives for parties to negotiate around this problem. Because the promisee cannot recover damages for losses that are invisible to the promisor at the time of formation, this rule gives the promisee an incentive to disclose this information when negotiating. Once the hidden information is communicated, the promisor then has an incentive to take the efficient level of precaution to avoid breach because he will be liable for the full amount of the promisee's damages. The duty to mitigate damages also has an economic explanation. The law requires that disappointed promisees modify their post-breach behavior to limit promisors' damages
The decision in Equuscorp is significant, as it has made clear several principles that were once ambiguous under Australian law. It ratifies that restitutionary remedies are unavailable for a claim for money had and received where recovery would reduce coherence in the law. Furthermore, Equuscorp has confirmed that a bare cause of action can be assigned where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in its enforcement.
(1) When the contract was entered into, was it apparent that damages would be difficult to estimate in the event of a breach? (2) Was the amount set as damages a reasonable estimate and not excessive? (Cross & Miller, 2012)
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
In the case of McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418 (2005), there was an internal investigation of the police department of “improper use of police scanners to eavesdrop on cordless phones and cellphones” (Diagle, 2012 para.10), which involved many officers. Police officer McKinley was interviewed two times. The first time McKinley was interviewed it was about the investigation, and the second time was about allegations that he was untruthful during the first interview, both times he was questioned he was under the Garrity Warnings. By the time of the second interview, McKinley was already “under criminal investigation for lying” (Diagle, 2012, para. 10), and during the second interview it was made clear to McKinley that it was about
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
If a breach of contract is both material and opportunistic, the injured promisee has a claim in restitution to the profit realized by the defaulting promisor as a result of the breach. Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.
Indeed, themes of coercion are oftentimes synonymous with family-related oppression that various groups faced. Some benefits were meant for children who were missing a parent, as merely lacking finances was not enough to merit welfare. Yet despite defining the condition as “absence of a parent,” what these programs really meant was the absence of a father-- the traditional wage-earner of the household. [footnote 115] There was anxiety about whether or not “able-bodied males might surreptitiously benefit from grants given to women and children,” for if one was physically able then regardless of whether or not the wages and hours were fair it was believed one should work. [footnote 124] Thus, any perceived method to circumvent such assigning
The decision of Marshall v. Barlow, 1978 immediately affected the field of public administration. The result of the Barlow’s case required that the governmental agencies obtain warrants to search or inspect an organization. A warrant provides assurance from a neutral officer that the inspection is reasonable under the Constitution, is authorized by statute, and reveals the administrative plan containing specific neutral criteria. Moreover, a warrant advises the owner of the scope and objects of the search, beyond the limits of the inspector.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
1. What Supreme Court decision fundamentally changed how election campaigns can now be financed in the U.S.? What is at the heart of this decision? The choice in the Supreme Court instance of Citizen's United generally changed how campaigns would now be able to be back in the U.S. It enables companies to spend boundless/unlimited measures of cash for or against an applicant. Nonetheless, cash can't go straightforwardly to the applicants. It needs to go to free outside gatherings/interest groups.
On the related, but rather different question of the motivation involved in keeping a promise, it may be that the promise-maker's acting or deciding in a particular way places him in a position identical to or in complete sympathy with the person to whom the promise has been made. Equally, it is, possible that events may turn out in such a way as to suggest that to keep the promise would be harmful to the interest of the person to whom it was made. Should this dilemma arise, whether or not the promise is kept must depend upon the particular circumstances of the case. Choosing not to keep a promise in such a situation would be not a demonstration of the promiser's inability to keep his word, but a clear indication of his quite proper awareness that, in deciding what course to take, the promiser has quite properly concluded that the interest of others must be placed before his own.
What occurred in this case was that in a new build factory there had been inoperative flooring set and the claimants in this case lost money due to the flooring having to be reset again. In this case the claimants were in contract with the builders who laid the floor but decided not to sue them but to sue the sub contractors for their negligence because they were present when the builders and claimants were at meetings when discussing the flooring. Similarly, to the case Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] the court allowed the claimants to sue the defendants for their financial
...‘Consideration: Practical benefit and the Emperor’s new clothes’ in Beatson and Friedmann (eds). Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 1995);
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
“The case of Carlill V carbolic Smokeball Company is considered a land mark in the English Law of contracts.”