Judgement Briefs

Contract Law

Hadley v. Baxendale

(1854) 9 Ex 341; 156 ER 145

Citation
(1854) 9 Ex 341; 156 ER 145
Court
Court of Exchequer
Date
1854
Bench
Alderson B and Court of Exchequer

Facts

  • Hadley operated a flour mill.
  • The mill stopped working because its crankshaft broke.
  • A replacement crankshaft could not be manufactured until the broken shaft was sent to engineers as a model.
  • Baxendale’s carrier firm agreed to transport the shaft.
  • Delivery was delayed through the carrier’s breach.
  • During the delay, the mill remained closed and Hadley lost profits.
  • The carrier had not been clearly informed that:
  • the mill would remain completely shut until delivery; or
  • no spare shaft was available.
  • Hadley sued for the profits lost during the delay.

Issue

  • Whether the carrier was liable for the mill’s lost profits.
  • What test determines whether contractual loss is too remote?

Rule

  • Damages are recoverable where they:
  • arise naturally, according to the usual course of things, from the breach; or
  • arise from special circumstances that were communicated to and contemplated by both parties when the contract was made.
  • Loss outside these two categories is too remote.

Application

  • Delay in transporting machinery may naturally cause some inconvenience.
  • But it does not necessarily follow that the entire business will remain closed.
  • A mill might:
  • possess a spare shaft;
  • continue partial operations;
  • obtain another replacement;
  • use the delivery only for routine repair.
  • Therefore, complete loss of profits was not an ordinary and inevitable consequence of delayed delivery.
  • Hadley could recover such special loss only if the carrier knew the particular circumstances.
  • The carrier was told that the item was a broken mill shaft, but was not sufficiently informed that the mill could not operate until it arrived.
  • Without that knowledge, the carrier could not reasonably be understood to have assumed responsibility for all lost business profits.
  • The law limits damages in this way because contractual parties price and allocate risk based on information available when they contract.
  • Where unusual consequences are likely, the affected party must communicate them.

Conclusion

  • The lost profits were too remote and were not recoverable.
  • The carrier had not been given sufficient notice of the special circumstances.
  • Use this case for: ordinary losses are recoverable automatically; unusual losses require communication at the time of contracting. (Justia Law)