Hadley v Baxendale

Hadley & Anor v Baxendale & Ors [1854] EWHC J70 is a leading English contract law case. It sets the leading rule to determine consequential damages from a breach of contract: a breaching party is liable for all losses that the contracting parties should have foreseen. However, if the other party has special knowledge that the party-in-breach does not, the breaching party is only liable for the losses that he could have foreseen on the information available to him. The claimants, Mr Hadley and another, were millers and mealmen and worked together in a partnership. A crankshaft of a steam engine at the mill had broken and Hadley arranged to have a new one made by W. Joyce & Co. in Greenwich. Before the new crankshaft could be made, W. Joyce & Co. required that the broken crankshaft be sent to them in order to ensure that the new crankshaft would fit together properly with the other parts of the steam engine. Hadley contracted with defendants Baxendale and Ors to deliver the crankshaft to engineers for repair by a certain date at a cost of £2 sterling and 4 shillings. Baxendale failed to deliver on the date in question, causing Hadley to lose business. Hadley sued for the profits he lost due to Baxendale's late delivery, and the jury awarded Hadley damages of £50. Baxendale appealed, contending that he did not know that Hadley would suffer any particular damage by reason of the late delivery. The question raised by the appeal in this case was whether a defendant in a breach of contract case could be held liable for damages that the defendant was not aware would be incurred from a breach of the contract. The Court of Exchequer, led by Baron Sir Edward Hall Alderson, declined to allow Hadley to recover lost profits, holding that Baxendale could be held liable only for losses that were generally foreseeable, or if Hadley had mentioned his special circumstances in advance. The mere fact that a party is sending something to be repaired does not indicate that the party would lose profits if it is not delivered on time.

À propos de ce résultat

Cette page est générée automatiquement et peut contenir des informations qui ne sont pas correctes, complètes, à jour ou pertinentes par rapport à votre recherche. Il en va de même pour toutes les autres pages de ce site. Veillez à vérifier les informations auprès des sources officielles de l'EPFL.

Concepts associés (2)

Hadley v Baxendale

Contrat en droit suisse

Un contrat en droit suisse est défini par l'article 1, alinéa premier du Code des obligations : « Le contrat est parfait lorsque les parties ont, réciproquement et d'une manière concordante, manifesté leur volonté ». Comme dans de nombreux pays de tradition juridique romano-civiliste, le contrat en droit suisse est l'échange d'au moins deux manifestations de volonté, appelées l'offre et l'acceptation, par lesquelles les parties décident de produire un effet juridique. Le contrat est donc un acte juridique bilatéral ou multilatéral.