Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Barnett
Hadley v. Baxendale
Citation:In the Court of Exchequer, 9 Ex. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854)
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
On May 11th, the Millers’ mill broke down due to the breakage of a crank shaft. The steam-engine was manufactured by engineers in Greenwich and it was necessary for the Millers to send the shaft as a pattern to the engineers so that a new shaft could be manufactured. The fracture was discovered on May 12th, and on May 13th the Millers sent one of their servants to the Carriers to inquire about delivering the shaft to the engineers in Greenwich. The Millers’ servant told the Carriers that the mill was stopped and that the shaft must be sent immediately. The servant asked the Carriers about their turn-around, and was told that if they sent the shaft to the Carriers by noon of any day the package would be delivered by the following day. The next day the shaft was taken to the Carriers before noon and two pounds four shillings was paid for the delivery; the Carriers were told that the Millers would pay extra to hasten the delivery. The delivery of the shaft was delayed due to neglect resulting in the Millers not receiving the new shaft for several days after they should have received it. The mill was therefore closed for several extra days and profits were lost. Millers sued Carriers for breach of contract.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.