Baxendale V. Pickford Case Summary
The case is about Hadley who owned a mill, which used a steam engine manufactured by W. Joyce and Company to make corn into flour. The engine crank shaft broke and in order to get the engine running again the broken shaft needed shipped back to Joyce and Company so they could create a replacement. Then Hadley contacted Pickford and company, which is owned by Baxendale. Hadley paid Pickford to ship the broken shaft to Joyce and Company ASAP and was promised to deliver it by the next day. However, it took longer to deliver because of Pickford and work was unable to continue. Hadley then sued Baxendale for breach of contract for the damages and for the revenue that was lost due to the mill being shut down. Baxendale argued that the money lost had nothing to do with the shipping contract. Hadley won and Baxendale also had to
…show more content…
Without this case serving a vital purpose when it comes to American law I can only imagine the amount of breach of contracts that would hold people liable for things they had no clue were even possible or that could take place. This is why the case of Baxendale v. Hadley was such a huge impact. The case let it be known for future cases that when it comes to the law many things are circumstantial especially when it comes down to who is held responsible. Had Baxendale also not made a counter argument and accepted the ruling then the case would not have made history and could have greatly impacted any future cases in relation to the contract law concept of foreseeable damages. After reviewing the case I see a lack in communication can also be a big factor in the ruling of a case. Had there been an open window of communication between Hadley not being able to continue work with his mill and Pickford not being able to deliver the part on time then no one might have looked into to suing one
Without this case serving a vital purpose when it comes to American law I can only imagine the amount of breach of contracts that would hold people liable for things they had no clue were even possible or that could take place. This is why the case of Baxendale v. Hadley was such a huge impact. The case let it be known for future cases that when it comes to the law many things are circumstantial especially when it comes down to who is held responsible. Had Baxendale also not made a counter argument and accepted the ruling then the case would not have made history and could have greatly impacted any future cases in relation to the contract law concept of foreseeable damages. After reviewing the case I see a lack in communication can also be a big factor in the ruling of a case. Had there been an open window of communication between Hadley not being able to continue work with his mill and Pickford not being able to deliver the part on time then no one might have looked into to suing one