Hadley v Baxendale
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1854 |
| Date | 23 February 1854 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 145
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C 2 C. L. R 517; 23 L. J. Ex. 179, 18 Jur. 358; 2 W. R 302 Applied, Smeed v. Foord, 1859, 1 El. & El 602, Gee v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, 1860, 6 H. & N. 216, Wilson v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, 1861, 9 C. B (N S) 632, Woodger v. Great Western Railway Company, 1867, L R. 2 C. P. 321, Coty v. Thames Ironworks Company, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B 189, Engel v. Fitch, 1868, L R. 3 Q B 323, L R 4 Q B 668; Prehn v Royal Bank of Liverpool, 1870, L R 5 Ex 97, Smith v Green, 1875, 1C P. D 94, Sanders v Stuart, 1876, 1 C P D 328, Wilson v General Iron Screw Colliery Company, 1877, 47 L J. Q B 240, Smith v Day, 1882, 21 Ch. D 428; Hamilton v Magill, 1883, 12 L. R. Ir 186; Rodocunachi v. Milburn, 1886, 17 Q. B D. 320 affirmed, 18 Q B. D 67; William v. Peel River Land Company, 1886, 55 L T 693, Hammond v Bussey, 1887, 20 Q B D 80; Couper v Richards, 1887, 3 T L R 739, White v. Peto, 1888, 58 L T 713; Ebbetts v Conquest, [1895] 2 Ch. 377 affirmed, [1896] A C. 490. M'Neill v. Richard, [1899] 1 Ir. R 85, Actus v Great Western Colliery Company, [1899] 2 Q. B 413. Not applied, Collard v South Eastern Railway, 1861, 7 H & N 79, Larios v Bonany, 1873, L. R. 5 P. C 358, Bradshaw v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, 1875, L R. 10 C P. 193, Skinner v. City of London Marine Insurance Corporation, 1885, 14 Q B D 887, Marsh v Loseph, [1897] 1 Ch 231 Discussed, Simon, v Patchett, 1857, 7 E & B 568, Wilson v Newport Dock Company, 1866, 4 H. & C 232, L R. 1 Ex 177, Horne v Midland Railway Company, 1873,
L. R 8 C P 131, Elhinqer Actien-Gesellschafft v Armstrong, 1874, L R. 9 Q B. 478, Sawdon v Andrew, 1874, 30 L T. 25, Irvine v Midland Great Western Railway, 1880, 6 L. R. Ir. 55, Finlay v. Chirney, 1888, 20 Q B D. 500, The Argentina, 1888, 13 P D 197 affirmed, 14 A C 519. Dissented from, Boyd v. Fitt, 1863, 14 Ir C L R. 43 Distinguished, Lilley v. Doubleday, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 512; Clate
v. Dobson, [1911] 1 K B. 42 Referred to, De Mattos v. Gibson, 1860, 1 J & H. 79,
Bain v. Fothergill, 1874, L R 7 H l177, Baxendale v. London, Chatham, and Dover
Railway company, 1874, l. R. 10 Ex. 45, Hobb v London and South Western Railwat
Company, 1875, L. R 10 Q B. 117, Grebert-Borgnis v. Nugent, 1885, 15 Q B D
89: South African Territories v. Wallington, [1897] 1 Q. B 692; Boxtock v Nicholson, [1904] 1 K. B. 737, Cointat v Myham, [1913] 2 K B 222
[341] hadley and another v. baxendale and others. Feb. 23,(a) 1854.- Where two parties have made a contract, which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising Haturally, i e according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, 01 such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it-Where the plaintiffs, the owners of a flour mill, sent a broken iron shaft to an office of the defendants, who were common carriers, to be conveyed by them, and the defendants' clerk, who attended at the office, was told that the mill was stopped, that the shaft must be dehveied immediately, and that a special entry, if necessary, must be made to hasten its delivery , and the delivery of the broken shaft to the consignee, to whom it had been sent by the plaintiffs as a pattern, by which to make a new shaft, was delayed for an unreasonable time ; in consequence of which, the plaintiffs did not receive the new shaft for some days after the time they ought to have received it, and they were consequently unable to work their mill from want of the new shaft, and thereby incurred a loss of profits :-Held, that, under the circumstances, such loss could not be recovered in an action against the defendants as common carriers. [S. Q 2 C. L. E 517 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 179, 18 Jur. 358; 2 W. R 302 Applied, Smeed v. Foord, 1859, 1 El. & El 602 , Gee v. Lancashiie and Yothhitc Railway Company, 1860, 6 H. & N. 216, Wilson v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, 1861, 9 C. B (N S ) 632, Woodgei v. Great Western Railway Company, 1867, L R. 2 C. P. 321 , Coty v. Thames Iwnworks Company, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B 189 , Engel v. Fitch, 1868, L R. 3 Q B 323, L R 4 Q B 668 ; I'rehn v Royal Hank of Liverpool, 1870, L R 5 Ex 97, Smith v Green, 1875, 1C P. D 94, Jandas v Stuart, 1876, 1 C P D 328 , Wilson v General Iron Screw Colliery Company, 1877, 47 L J. Q B 240, Smith \ Day, 1882, 21 Ch. D 428 ; Hamilton v Magill, 1883, 12 L. R. Ir 186 ; Rodocnnachi v. Milbvrn, 1886, 17 Q. B D. 320 affirmed, 18 Q B. D 67 ; William* v. Peel River Land Company, 1886, 55 L T 693 , Hammond \ Bus^ey, 1887, 20 Q B D 80 ; Couper v Richards, 1887, 3 T L R 739 , White v. Petu, 18N8, 58 L T 713; Ebbttts v Conquest, [1895] 2 Ch. 377 affirmed, [IK96] A C. 490 . M'Nnll v. Richard-*, [1899] 1 Ir. R 85 , Actus v Great Western Colliety Company, [1899] 2 Q. B 413. Not applied, Collard v South Eastetn Railway, 1861, 7 H &N 79, Lartosv Bonany, 1873, L. R. 5 P. C 358, BradJiaw v. LancaJme. and Yoikshue Railway, 1875, L R. 10 C P. 193, Skinner v. City of London Marine Insurance Corpoiahon, 1885, 14 Q B D 887 , Maih v loseph, [1897] 1 Ch 231 Discussed, Simom, v Patchett, 1857, 7 E & B 568, Wilson v Newpoi t Dock Company, 1866, 4 H. & C 232 , L R. 1 Ex 177, Home v Midland Railway Company, 1873, L. R 8C P 131, Elhinqer Actun-Gtsdlsthafft v A-tm^ong, 1874, L R. 9 Q B. 478 , Sawdoit v Andiew, 1874, 30 L T. 25 , Irvine v Midland Great Western Railway, 1880, 6 L. R. Ir. 55 , Fmlay v. Chuney, 1888, 20 Q B D. 500, The Argentina, 1888, 13 P D 197 affirmed, 14 A C 519. Dissented fiom, Boyd v. Fitt, 1863, 14 Ir C L R. 43 Distinguished, Lilley v. Douhleday, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 512; Clate v. Dobson, [1911] 1 K B. 42 Referred to, De Mattoi v. Gibson, 1860, 1 J & H. 79, Buin v. Fotheigill, 1874, L R 7 H L 177 , Baxendale v. London, Chatham, and Dovei Railway Company, 1874, L. R. 10 Ex. 45, Hobb* v London and South Western Rad- way Company, 1875, L. R 10 Q B. 117 , Grebett-B^gn^ v. Nugent, 1885, 15 Q B D 89: South African Temtoites v. Walhngton, [1897] 1 Q. B 692; Boxtock v Nichol son, [1904] 1 K. B. 737 , Comtat v Hyham, [1913] 2 K B 222] The first count of the declaration stated, that, before and at the time of the making by the defendants of the promises hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiffs carried on the business of millers and mealmen in copartnership, and were proprietors and (ti) Decided in Hilary Vacation. 146 HADLEY V. BAXENDALE 9 EX 342 occupiers of the City Steam-Mills, in the city of Gloucester, and were possessed of a steam-engine, by means of which they worked the said mills, and therein cleaned corn, and ground the same into meal, and dressed the same into flour, sharps, and bran, and a certain portion of the said steam-engine, to wit, the crank shaft of the said steam-engine, was broken and out of lepaii, whereby tbe said steam-engine was prevented ham working, and the plaintiffs were desirous of having a new crank shaft made for the said mill, and had oniered the same of certain peisons trading under the name of W. Joyce & Co , at Greenwich, in the county of Kent, who had contiacted to make the said new shaft foi the plaintiffs , but before they could complete the said new shaft it was necessary that the said bioken shaft should be fotwatded to then works at Greenwich, in oidei that the said new shaft might be made so a? to tit the other parts of the said engine which were not injured, and so that it might be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Guinness Anchor Marketing Sdn Bhd v Chellam Joe Vetha Thya Singh
- Great One Coconut Products Industries (M) Sdn Bhd v Malayan Banking Bhd
-
Liverpool and County Discount Company Ltd v A.B. Motor Company (Kilburn) Ltd
...I can see no respect in which the learned Judge has erred. Mr Anwyl-Davies said that the facts do not fall within the principles of Hadley v. Battendale. I think they do. If the question were asked. what is likely to be the damage caused to the finance company if the statements made by the ......
- Heller Factoring Sdn Bhd (Previously known as Matang Factoring Sdn Bhd) v Metalco Industries (M) Sdn Bhd
-
Complex Commercial Litigation Law Review – England and Wales
...remedies are subject to the rule against penalties, discussed below.65 Robinson v. Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850.66 See Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341; Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd 4 [1949] 2 KB.528; Koufos v. C. Czarnikow Ltd (The Heron II) [1969] 1 AC 350.67 Hadl......
-
Complex Commercial Litigation Law Review - Fifth Edition - England & Wales
...Makdessi) and ParkingEye Ltd v. Beavis,78 the Supreme Court held that the test for whether a penalty clause 70 See Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341, Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd 4 [1949] 2 KB.528 and Koufos v. C Czarnikow Ltd (e Heron II) [1969] 1 AC 350.71 H......
-
Construction Arbitration: Ireland
...the contract (second limb - the special knowledge loss). [Hadley and Another v Baxendale and Others, Exchequer Court, 23 February 1854 (1854) 9 Ex. 341]. Any reference in a contract to excluding 'indirect' or 'consequential' loss can only exclude the second limb of losses described in Hadle......
-
Work Health & Safety - What's News - 15 April 2014
...naturally from any breach or should have been within the contemplation of the employer - Remoteness - Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341; 156 ER 145 and Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon [1993] HCA 4; (1993) 176 CLR 344 applied. Grocon & Ors v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Un......
-
Change of position and restitution for wrongs: 'ne'er the twain shall meet'?
...that is, to what extent the plaintiff's right to be compensated for losses should be restricted: see Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341; 156 ER 145; Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd [1969] 1 AC 350, 393 (Lord Morris); Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64, 91 (Mason CJ and Dawson ......
-
Contract Law
...that is embodied within the sphere of contract law (and which can be traced to the seminal English decision in Hadley v Baxendale(1854) 9 Exch 341; 156 ER 145). 9.89 In the Singapore High Court decision of Winjoy Investment Pte Ltd v Goh Boon Huat[2002] 2 SLR 347 (also considered supra, at ......
-
Contract Law
...second limb of Alderson B”s classic test of remoteness of damage in contract law in the seminal English decision of Hadley v Baxendale(1854) 9 Exch 341 at 354—355; 156 ER 145 at 151 (see also generally Phang, Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston”s Law of Contract — Second Singapore and Malaysian E......
-
AN ACCOUNT OF ACCOUNTS
...[1976] AC 104; Edgington v Fitzmaurice(1885) 29 Ch D 459; UCB Corporate Services v Williams[2002] EWCA Civ 555. 117 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341: “reasonable contemplation” has been interpreted to mean that the loss is in the ordinary course of things or that even if it is extraordi......