i Disparate treatment ii Disparate impact iii Exceptions iv Remedies v

I disparate treatment ii disparate impact iii

  • Test Prep
  • volleymama1026
  • 5
  • 100% (1) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 5 pages.

i) Disparate treatment ii) Disparate impact iii) Exceptions iv) Remedies v) Religious accommodation c) April Miller, et al. v. Kim Davis, individually and in her official capacity i) Laws at issue and who they apply to (1) Kentucky RFRA – doesn’t apply to private employers (2) Free Speech (3) Religious test (4) Free Exercise Clause Hawkins v. McGee The Facts : A doctor, Defendant McGee, operated on Plaintiff Hawkins’ hand and performed a skin graft. P had sustained the hand injury nine years prior to the operation in an accident which had no relation to D. D spoke the words, “I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand or a hundred per cent good hand.” D repeatedly solicited P’s father and P and D may even have stated that he wanted an opportunity to “experiment on skin grafting.” P and his father consented to the operation. After the operation, P was left with a hand that was arguably in worse condition than prior to the surgery. P claimed the damage was the fault of D and P contends this was a contract and a warranty. Procedural History : P sued D in a N.H. court for assumpsit (breach of contract). A jury trial ensued. The jury found that D and P had made a contract and ruled in P’s favor. The jury was also instructed by the trial court that it could consider pain and suffering due to the operation and positive ill effects of the operation upon P’s hand. The jury awarded $3,000 to P. D appealed and the case was heard in N.H. Supreme Court, where damages were ruled excessive. P was ordered to return all but $500, and he refused, so the verdict was overturned. The finding of breach of warranty stood. The Issue : How are damages calculated in a breach of contract? In this case, the difference “between the value to [Hawkins] of a perfect hand such as the jury found the defendant promised him, and the value of his hand in its present condition…” Did the lower court follow this rule correctly? Did the lower court properly instruct the jury regarding the determination of whether or not a contract existed? The Rule : Damages in a breach of contract case are either reliance or expectation, and may be measured by determining the difference between P’s actual position and the position he would have been in had the
Image of page 3
contract not been breached. Also, the nature of a contract is reiterated in this case by the court’s comparison of different utterances and actions on D’s part which do not constitute a contract, and the facts surrounding his statement, “I guarantee to make the hand 100 per cent good,” which the court found was a breach of warranty. Damages could only be considered for D’s failure to improve the condition of the hand (the position P would have been in had the contract not been breached), not for any worsening of the condition of the hand. Rules pertaining to this matter can be found in Restatement Sections 2 and 4. The Holding / Disposition : The N. H. Supreme Court held that the lower court’s instructions regarding damages were incorrect, and found that the evidence presented would have justified a verdict for an amount sufficient to cover the cost of a new operation to correct the injury to the hand. The court found that the question of whether a contract existed was properly submitted to the jury. Overturned and sent
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 5 pages?

  • Spring '19
  • The Land, N. H. Supreme Court, Defendant McGee

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes