{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

ContractsCaseListBaird2005 - CONTRACTS Cases Case Hawkins v...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
amount of coal that was extracted Peevyhouses says that they didn’t want $3K but the land restored instead.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}