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)