06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

It was also erroneous and misleading to submit to the jury as a separate<br />

element of damage any change <strong>for</strong> the worse in the condition of the plaintiff’s hand<br />

resulting from the operation, although this error was probably more prejudicial to the<br />

plaintiff than to the defendant. Any such ill effect of the operation would be included<br />

under the true rule of damages set <strong>for</strong>th above, but damages might properly be<br />

assessed <strong>for</strong> the defendant’s failure to improve the condition of the hand even if there<br />

were no evidence that its condition was made worse as a result of the operation.<br />

It must be assumed that the trial court, in setting aside the verdict, undertook<br />

to apply the same rule of damages which he had previously given to the jury, and<br />

since this rule was erroneous, it is unnecessary <strong>for</strong> us to consider whether there was<br />

any evidence to justify his finding that all damages awarded by the jury above $500<br />

were excessive.<br />

_____________________<br />

Review Question 1. Make note of the legal standard used by the Hawkins v.<br />

McGee court. How does it square with the way things are phrased in sections 347-348<br />

of the Restatement (Second) of <strong>Contract</strong>s? Are the rules different, or are they basically<br />

the same as what the Hawkins court describes?<br />

Review Question 2. How much more is a perfect hand worth than a hairy<br />

hand, and how would one calculate that? At one point in Hawkins, the court describes<br />

the case as “closely analogous to one in which a machine is built <strong>for</strong> a certain purpose<br />

and warranted to do certain work.” If the seller of a machine breached a warranty of<br />

its quality, how would the buyer’s damages be calculated? Consult UCC § 2-714 in<br />

answering this last question.<br />

Review Question 3. The Hawkins court asks us to compare the current<br />

situation with an alternative set of events that did not actually occur. A problem with<br />

this approach is that it is very difficult to actually predict a future that did not<br />

happen. As you read the U.S. Naval Institute case that follows, pay attention to how<br />

the court goes about calculating a specific dollar amount based on a state of affairs<br />

that did not happen. See if you can explain the court’s reasoning to a trusted<br />

classmate—or even to some other person who you think you can subject to that sort<br />

of thing.<br />

_____________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

482 CHAPTER VIII: REMEDIES

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!