This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org

Hawkins v. McGee: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Upgrade)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
|court=New Hampshire Supreme Court
|court=New Hampshire Supreme Court
|citation=84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929)
|citation=84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929)
|date=1929
|date=June 4, 1929
|subject=Contracts
|subject=Contracts
|case_treatment=No
|case_treatment=No
Line 11: Line 11:
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/hawkins-v-mcgee
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/hawkins-v-mcgee
|case_text_source=Quimbee video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee video summary
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://casetext.com/case/hawkins-v-mcgee
|case_text_source=CaseText
}}
}}
}}
}}

Revision as of 13:51, July 4, 2023

Hawkins v. McGee
Court New Hampshire Supreme Court
Citation 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929)
Date decided June 4, 1929

Facts

Defendant Dr. McGee promised Plaintiff Hawkins that his hand would be a "one hundred percent good hand" after a skin graft operation. The hand was unsatisfactory after the operation (it became covered in hair).

Procedural History

The jury was instructed to award damages based on restitution damages (the difference between Hawkin's prior hand and his now-hairy hand).

Comments

Case Text Links

Issue: Was what the Dr. said really a promise? Were the instructions to the Jury proper?

Holding: Yes, it was part of a valid contract. No, jury instructions were improper.

Reasons: The jury instructions should have specified expectation damages (the difference between a perfect hand as promised and the actual condition of the hand).

Judgment: New trial ordered.