Case Brief Hawkins V Mcgee
Patrick Haines
JLC 101
Prof. Edelson
9/11/14
Hawkins v McGee case brief
Case Name: Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641.(1929)
Facts: Mr. Hawkins, the Plaintiff had undergone reconstructive surgery by Dr. McGee,the defendant, in order to remove scar tissue on his hand that had resulted from an electrical wire accident nine years prior to the transaction. The procedure called for the removal of the scar tissue from his palm and the grafting of skin from his chest in its place. When asked about how long the procedure would take, the plaintiff claims the defendant replied “ Three or four days, not over four;then the boy will go home and it will be just a few days when he will go back to work with a good hand”. On top of this assumed promise of a successful procedure, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had repeatedly talked to the defendant’s father about the opportunity of “experimenting with skin grafting”. The plaintiff agreed to the procedure, but it was unsuccessful. The plaintiff’s hand did …show more content…
not improve ,as the defendant had assured him, and it was arguably worse in condition than the before the procedure. The Plaintiff argues that the defendant is liable for the damages suffered from the failed procedure and that this constitutes a “breach of contract”.
Procedural History: The Plaintiff , Hawkins, sued the Defendant, Dr.
McGee, for what he saw as a breach of contract and filed for reparation of damages resulting. A trial by jury ensued. The jury was given instructions two elements of damage when determining the weight of the damages the plaintiff had suffered. The first element involved any ill effects on the plaintiff’s hand from the surgery, while the second element weighed the pain and suffering the resulted from the procedure. The jury decided in the plaintiffs favor that there was a contract and then awarded the plaintiff $3000 in damages. The defendant appealed the ruling and it was heard by the New Hampshire Supreme Court who ruled that the awarded damages were “excessive and against the weight of evidence”. The defendant was ordered to remit all but $500 dollars of the damages but refused to remit and thus the court ordered the verdict to be set aside. The verdict on breach of contract did stand
,however.
Issues:How are damages supposed to be calculated in a breach of contract case? Also, did the lower court properly instruct the jury on how to determine whether or not a contract existed?
Holding/Judgement: The court ruled that the lower court’s instructions to the jury on how to determine damages were erroneous and that the evidence present would have covered the cost of repairing the hand. The court decided that the qualifications for the existence of a contract was validly presented in the lower court as the damages suffered by the procedure constuted a breach of warranty. The Court overturned original verdict and dropped the case for retrial.
Pre-existing law: The court based its decision on precedent law set by previous cases. It used precedents set in Davis v. New England Cotton Yarn Co., 77 N. H. 403, 404, 92 A. 732, 733 that determined that the purpose of damages was to compensate for breaches and that the only losses under a contract are those that could have been predicted to occur with a violation in the agreement or ones that the parties had in mind at the time of making the contract. Also, the precedent law set in Union Bank v. Blanchard, 65 N. H. 21, 23, 18 A. 90, 91 set the basis for a general rule on damages. This applied rule states that damages in a case should be difference in the value of the goods had the contract been followed and the value at the time of sale. Using this rule, the damages of pain and suffering would be declared not be applicable because damages could only be determined for the defendants failure to repair the hand and not for the wresting condition of it. In the case of contracts, the defendants failure to back up the claim that he would make the hand “100%” can be seen as a breach of warranty.
Reasoning: The court applied the rule of precedent on damages to determine that damages would only be the difference in value of what the plaintiff deemed a good hand promised to him by the defendant and the value of his hand’s present condition. Using this rule, the Court found that the defendant was liable to pay only $500 of damages offered. It was ruled that the total amount of $3000 was erroneous and to big a penalty because the damages for pain and suffering did not apply. The lower court’s inclusion of “pain and suffering” damages was deemed incorrect because it did not apply to the set standard of rules on damages the higher court had applied in this case. The instructions on determining whether a contract existed was ruled as properly carried out by the lower court because the defendant’s failure to back his claim to make the hand 100% warranted a breach of warranty.
Dissents/Concurrences: None
JLC 101
Prof. Edelson
9/11/14
Hawkins v McGee case brief
Case Name: Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641.(1929)
Facts: Mr. Hawkins, the Plaintiff had undergone reconstructive surgery by Dr. McGee,the defendant, in order to remove scar tissue on his hand that had resulted from an electrical wire accident nine years prior to the transaction. The procedure called for the removal of the scar tissue from his palm and the grafting of skin from his chest in its place. When asked about how long the procedure would take, the plaintiff claims the defendant replied “ Three or four days, not over four;then the boy will go home and it will be just a few days when he will go back to work with a good hand”. On top of this assumed promise of a successful procedure, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had repeatedly talked to the defendant’s father about the opportunity of “experimenting with skin grafting”. The plaintiff agreed to the procedure, but it was unsuccessful. The plaintiff’s hand did …show more content…
not improve ,as the defendant had assured him, and it was arguably worse in condition than the before the procedure. The Plaintiff argues that the defendant is liable for the damages suffered from the failed procedure and that this constitutes a “breach of contract”.
Procedural History: The Plaintiff , Hawkins, sued the Defendant, Dr.
McGee, for what he saw as a breach of contract and filed for reparation of damages resulting. A trial by jury ensued. The jury was given instructions two elements of damage when determining the weight of the damages the plaintiff had suffered. The first element involved any ill effects on the plaintiff’s hand from the surgery, while the second element weighed the pain and suffering the resulted from the procedure. The jury decided in the plaintiffs favor that there was a contract and then awarded the plaintiff $3000 in damages. The defendant appealed the ruling and it was heard by the New Hampshire Supreme Court who ruled that the awarded damages were “excessive and against the weight of evidence”. The defendant was ordered to remit all but $500 dollars of the damages but refused to remit and thus the court ordered the verdict to be set aside. The verdict on breach of contract did stand
,however.
Issues:How are damages supposed to be calculated in a breach of contract case? Also, did the lower court properly instruct the jury on how to determine whether or not a contract existed?
Holding/Judgement: The court ruled that the lower court’s instructions to the jury on how to determine damages were erroneous and that the evidence present would have covered the cost of repairing the hand. The court decided that the qualifications for the existence of a contract was validly presented in the lower court as the damages suffered by the procedure constuted a breach of warranty. The Court overturned original verdict and dropped the case for retrial.
Pre-existing law: The court based its decision on precedent law set by previous cases. It used precedents set in Davis v. New England Cotton Yarn Co., 77 N. H. 403, 404, 92 A. 732, 733 that determined that the purpose of damages was to compensate for breaches and that the only losses under a contract are those that could have been predicted to occur with a violation in the agreement or ones that the parties had in mind at the time of making the contract. Also, the precedent law set in Union Bank v. Blanchard, 65 N. H. 21, 23, 18 A. 90, 91 set the basis for a general rule on damages. This applied rule states that damages in a case should be difference in the value of the goods had the contract been followed and the value at the time of sale. Using this rule, the damages of pain and suffering would be declared not be applicable because damages could only be determined for the defendants failure to repair the hand and not for the wresting condition of it. In the case of contracts, the defendants failure to back up the claim that he would make the hand “100%” can be seen as a breach of warranty.
Reasoning: The court applied the rule of precedent on damages to determine that damages would only be the difference in value of what the plaintiff deemed a good hand promised to him by the defendant and the value of his hand’s present condition. Using this rule, the Court found that the defendant was liable to pay only $500 of damages offered. It was ruled that the total amount of $3000 was erroneous and to big a penalty because the damages for pain and suffering did not apply. The lower court’s inclusion of “pain and suffering” damages was deemed incorrect because it did not apply to the set standard of rules on damages the higher court had applied in this case. The instructions on determining whether a contract existed was ruled as properly carried out by the lower court because the defendant’s failure to back his claim to make the hand 100% warranted a breach of warranty.
Dissents/Concurrences: None