Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Contracts Keyed to Whaley

View this case in different Casebooks

Contracts Keyed to Fuller Contracts Keyed to Templin

Sullivan v. O’Connor

Citation:

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1973. 363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

Alice Sullivan (Plaintiff) was a professional entertainer who entered into a contract with Dr. James O’Connor, a surgeon, (Defendant) to perform plastic surgery on her nose. Defendant failed to achieve the promised result of the surgery and instead disfigured and deformed plaintiff’s nose.

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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

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.
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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - In what way does the court’s application of reliance damages in Sullivan v. O’Connor challenge the classical assumption that contract remedies are strictly compensatory rather than punitive?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The court’s inclusion of pain and suffering compensation in reliance damages indirectly imposes a deterrent function, aligning with the objectives of punitive damages rather than mere compensation.

Correct! By including pain and suffering in reliance damages, the court introduced a remedial function that extends beyond pure compensation, resembling the deterrent rationale behind punitive damages.

(B) The ruling adheres to classical compensatory principles by ensuring the plaintiff is merely restored to her pre-contractual position without introducing punitive considerations.

Incorrect. The ruling does not merely restore the plaintiff to her pre-contractual position; it expands contract damages beyond pure economic loss.

(C) By expanding the scope of damages beyond direct economic loss, the court effectively transformed breach of contract into a tortious cause of action requiring a broader measure of recovery.

Incorrect. While the case blurs contract and tort boundaries, it does not fully transform contract breach into a tortious claim.

(D) The court reinforced the traditional compensatory framework by maintaining strict adherence to foreseeability and rejecting any punitive rationale in its damage calculation.

Incorrect. The damages awarded exceeded purely economic foreseeability, making strict adherence to compensatory principles questionable.

Q.2 - How does the court’s reasoning in Sullivan v. O’Connor implicitly question the doctrinal rigidity of the Hadley v. Baxendale foreseeability test?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The court’s willingness to award damages for pain and suffering suggests that foreseeability in contract law should not be confined to economic losses but should extend to the psychological impact of breached expectations.

Incorrect. While the court expanded reliance damages, it did not expressly redefine foreseeability to include all psychological harm.

(B) The decision follows Hadley v. Baxendale strictly, as the harm suffered by the plaintiff was objectively foreseeable at the time of contract formation.

Incorrect. The decision deviates from strict adherence to Hadley v. Baxendale by considering non-economic harm.

(C) By incorporating reliance-based compensation, the court abandoned the foreseeability doctrine entirely, instead favoring an ex post determination of harm rather than an ex ante evaluation of risk.

Incorrect. The court did not abandon foreseeability entirely but applied a nuanced distinction rather than rejecting it outright.

(D) The ruling distinguishes between economic and non-economic foreseeability, maintaining that contract damages should not extend to psychological harm absent explicit contractual provisions.

Correct! The ruling distinguishes between economic and non-economic foreseeability, maintaining that contract damages should not extend to psychological harm absent explicit contractual provisions.

Q.3 - Which of the following represents the most sophisticated critique of the court’s approach to contractual reliance damages in Sullivan v. O’Connor?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The reliance damages framework as applied here incentivizes plaintiffs to pursue contract claims in circumstances where tort remedies would traditionally govern, thereby distorting doctrinal boundaries.

Incorrect. While the ruling broadens reliance damages, it does not necessarily distort doctrinal boundaries between contract and tort law.

(B) The court’s approach enhances contractual enforcement by ensuring that promises inducing detrimental reliance are meaningfully enforced through a robust remedial framework.

Correct! The court’s approach enhances contractual enforcement by ensuring that promises inducing detrimental reliance are meaningfully enforced through a robust remedial framework.

(C) The damages awarded fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of reliance interest, which should be limited to objective, quantifiable economic detriment rather than subjective experiences like pain and suffering.

Incorrect. The decision acknowledges subjective harm but does not fundamentally misinterpret reliance interest—it expands it within a foreseeable scope.

(D) By focusing on reliance rather than expectation, the court inadvertently diminishes the incentive to enter into beneficial contractual relationships by increasing the cost of breach.

Incorrect. While reliance-based damages may increase breach costs, they do not necessarily disincentivize beneficial contracts.

Topic Resources

^™ CaseCast

Melissa A. Hale

ProfessorMelissa A. Hale

CaseCast™ "What you need to know"

CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"

Sullivan v. O’Connor

To continue listening to this CaseCast™ please Subscribe

Topic Videos

Sullivan v. O’Connor

5m 51s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Sullivan v. O’Connor

3m 36s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Outline

Damages

Topic Refresher Courses

Intro to Damages and Expectation Damages Reliance and Restitution

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Sullivan v. O'Connor