Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Hadley was the plaintiff and Baxendale was the defendant. A crank shaft broke in the plaintiff's mill, which meant that the mill had to stop working. The plaintiffs wanted to send the shaft to the manufacturer as quickly as possible, so that it could be used as a pattern for a new one. The carriers commissioned by the plaintiff were guilty of serious delay in making delivery. The defendant failed to deliver on the date in question, causing the plaintiff to lose business. On the above facts, the plaintiffs brought an action for breach of contract by reason of the delay. The test for remoteness of contractual damages was laid down in this case.
The test of remoteness was not satisfied in the case of Hadley v Baxendale.
Why is this so? This is because under the 1st limb, the losses suffered by the plaintiff were not natural consequences of the defendants breach. It is not natural because usually, businesses like the one carried out by the plaintiff in this case, would be assumed to have spare/extra shafts. Furthermore, under the 2nd limb, the loss of profit was not within the contemplation of both parties. The defendant was not informed that the mill will be inoperable in the absence of the shaft. The defendant did not know that the plaintiff only had one crank shaft. Therefore, in this case, it was not within the knowledge of the defendant; the loss not being communicated to the defendant so the defendant was not in the contemplation of the loss of profit.