Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70 (9 February 1854)
Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70 is a judgment from United Kingdom on 9 February 1854. Search it by the party names, or United Kingdom judgment.
united-kingdom
February 9, 1854
UNITED KINGDOM
Hadley
v.
Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70
Proceeding. Judgment. United Kingdom.
Held. Damages for breach of contract are limited to losses that arise naturally from the breach or that were within the reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting.
HADLEY v BAXENDALE [1854] EWHC J70; (1854) 9 Exch 341 Court of Exchequer 9 February 1854
Judges: Alderson B, Parke B, Martin B, Platt B
Facts
The owned a flour mill. The crankshaft of the mill broke and they engaged the , carriers, to take the broken shaft to the manufacturers so that a replacement could be made. The defendants delayed delivery. The mill was idle longer than expected and the plaintiffs claimed lost profits.
Held
The Court of Exchequer held that the lost profits were too remote. The defendants did not know that the mill would be stopped if the shaft was delayed. Damages are recoverable only for losses that arise naturally from the breach in the usual course of things, or for losses that both parties contemplated as a probable result of the breach at the time of contracting.
Key Principles
1. The two limbs of remoteness: losses arising naturally from the breach, or losses within the reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of the contract.
2. Special circumstances must be communicated if the claimant wants damages beyond the ordinary measure.
3. The rule remains the foundation of remoteness of damage in contract across common-law jurisdictions.
Why It Matters in Sierra Leone
Hadley v Baxendale is the starting point for assessing contractual damages in Sierra Leone courts. It is cited whenever a party claims consequential loss and the other party argues that the loss was not within reasonable contemplation.