ContractsCaseListBaird2005 - CONTRACTS Cases Case Hawkins v...

CONTRACTS Cases
Case Ct/Year Facts Issue Rule Holding/Decision
Hawkins v. McGee NH Sup Ct
1929
Dr. (Assumpsit) promised
Hawkins perfect hand after
3-4 days in hospital.
Botched operation resulted
in permanently disfigured
hand and several months in
hospital. Lower Court:
different btw hand then and
now.
Is there Tort liability?
Is there Contract claim
based on promise made and
act taken in reliance?
If yes, how should damages
be assessed?
It must be shown that a
REASONABLE person
would infer that Dr. McGee
was putting himself on the
line and assuming liability
for the guarantee.
Not exactly a contact by saying the
boy could work within a few days
after 3-4 days after the operation
Something does not become a
legally enforceable promise
because they use the words “I
guarantee,” mere expression only.
AC: difference btw hand now and
promised hand.
Groves v. John Wunder Legally enforceable
contract. Groves wanted the
land leveled. Wunder
doesn’t level off the land as
specified by Groves.
Wunder says he didn’t b/c
land is worthless. If he
leveled off the land it would
cost him more than what the
land was worth.
Breach of contract willful
and in bad faith.
What amount of damages is
Groves is entitled to?
Have a choice can either
perform according to the
contract or can pay
monetary damages. The law
is indifferent btw the two
options.
Judgment affirmed, damages for
the cost of completion for the thing
contracted to be done.
Dissent: 3 rd option for assessing
damages: “the loss or injury
actually sustained by the oblige,
rather than the cost of performance
by the obligor”. If oblige wouldn’t
have gotten any positive result
from having the contract fulfilled
then there would be no reason to
have him reimbursed for the price
of fulfilling the contract.
Peevyhouse v. Garland
Coal & Mining Co.
OK S.C. defendant did not fill in the
pits according to the gravel
Similar to Groves v.
Wunder. Coal rather than
gravel and time period
makes them only slightly
different. Garland was
going to give money to the
Peevyhouses based on the
Is the amount that they
agree upon going to be the
amount which the PH
attach to the land? Should
subjective value be taken
into consideration?
OK statute = can’t recover
for more plaintiff would
gain by full performance of
the contract
In expectation damages
universe, Garland should
have to pay the amount of
money equal to subjective
value that the Peevyhouse’s
reduced the amount of damages
from $5000 to $3000 – because
$5000 was more then the value of
the farm land if remedial work had
been done—didn’t use expectation
damages principle
Dissent: believes court should have
found like Groves, compensation

amount of coal that was
extracted
Peevyhouses says that they
didn’t want $3K but the
land restored instead.