Law Notes

docx

School

Baruch College, CUNY *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1101

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BailiffTurkeyMaster1014

Title of the Case: Hawkins v. McGee, Supreme Court of New Hampshire (1929) Facts: George Hawkins sued Edward R. B. McGee for breach of contract. Hawkins injured his hand and approached McGee for medical treatment. McGee guaranteed that Hawkins could return to work after the surgery with the “perfect” hand, “I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand or a hundred per cent good hand” (Hawkins v. McGee). Hawkins sued because McGee had breached their contract. Hawkins claimed that McGee had provided a warranty when he promised him a “perfect” hand. McGee argued that they had not entered a contract and his guarantee of a “perfect” hand was “his expression in strong language that he believed and expected that as a result of the operation he would give the plaintiff a very good” (Hawkins v. McGee). The jury voted in favor of Hawkins and awarded him damages of $500. McGee appealed the decision. He argued that they had not entered a contract and that the damages charged to him were excessive. The trial court denied his appeal but agreed that the damages were excessive. Hawkins refused to return the damages he received. McGee appealed the trial court’s decision that a contract had been formed and Hawkins appealed the trial court’s decision to reduce the damages. Issue(s): Can a doctor’s promise result in the formation of a contract between two parties? Are damages measured by the value of what would have been received had the contract not been breached? (Referenced Legal Dictionary) Decision:

Yes. The Court determined that a contract had been formed and held that the true measure of the damages was the “difference between the value to him of a perfect hand or a good hand” (Hawkins v. McGee). Reasoning: First, the Court found that a contract had been formed between Hawkins and McGee. There is proof that McGee solicited Hawkins for the opportunity to perform the surgery, “in which he had had little previous experience” (Hawkins v. McGee) . Second, the current case is similar to a case where “a machine is built for a certain purpose and warranted to do certain work” (Hawkins v. McGee). In that case, “the usual rule of damages for breach of warranty in the sale of goods is applied and it is held that the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the machine” (Hawkins v. McGee) and the parties expected losses. Thus, the Court held that the true measure of damages was the “difference between the value to him of a perfect hand or a good hand” (Hawkins v. McGee). Hawkins suffering is “not a measure of the difference in value” (Hawkins v. McGee). His suffering was “a legal detriment suffered by him as part of the consideration given by him for the contract” (Hawkins v. McGee). A new trial was ordered.

Works Cited Team, B. (2018, October 29). Hawkins v. McGee - Case Summary and Case Brief. Retrieved October 27, 2020, from https://legaldictionary.net/hawkins-v-mcgee/

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Law Notes

Related Documents