Hawkins v. McGee
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
146 A. 641 (1929)
able to all parties at the time of contract formation. The purpose of
this is to put the non-breaching party in as good a position as he
would have been in had the breaching party kept the contract, and
thus any additional losses not reasonably foreseeable to the parties at
the time of contract formation cannot be considered when calculating damages. There is no basis for holding that the jury acted erroneously in finding that McGee breached an implied warranty for the
success of the operation based on his statements to Hawkins. However, after concluding that a breach occurred, the jury incorrectly
considered damages based on irrelevant factors. It should not have
awarded damages for Hawkins’ pain and suffering, as this was a necessary part of the operation that was endured by Hawkins as consideration for McGee’s performance of the operation. Additionally, no
damages should have been awarded for any worsening of Hawkins’
hand by the operation, as damages can be sufficiently awarded based
on McGee’s failure to follow through with his guarantee of producing a “one hundred percent good hand.” Both the jury and the trial
court incorrectly considered these additional factors, and the decision to set aside the verdict for damages over $500 should be remanded for reconsideration of damages under the proper standard.
.la SA
w M
sc P
ho LE
ol P
do A
w GE
nl
oa
ds
.c
o
McGee (defendant), a surgeon, performed a procedure on Hawkins (plaintiff) designed to remove scar
tissue from Hawkins’ hand and replace it with a skin graft from
Hawkins’ chest. When asked by Hawkins and his father for more
information about the operation, McGee allegedly said that he guaranteed to make a “one hundred percent good” hand. Hawkins and
his father agreed to the operation, but it was performed unsuccessfully. Hawkins brought suit against McGee on the ground that McGee violated an alleged warranty for the success of the operation.
The trial court instructed the jury that if it found Hawkins was entitled to relief, it should award him damages based on his pain and
suffering from the operation, as well as the additional ill effects he
suffered from the operation beyond his existing injury. The jury
awarded damages to Hawkins, but McGee moved to set aside the
verdict because it was excessive. The trial court agreed with McGee
and said that if Hawkins did not return the damages awarded above
$500, the verdict would be set aside. Hawkins refused and the trial
court set aside the verdict. Hawkins appealed.
m
FACTS:
RULE OF LAW:
When one party breaches a contract, the non-breaching party may
recover damages based on the difference between the value of the
contract as fully performed and the actual value of the non-breaching party’s present condition, plus any incidental damages reasonably foreseeable to all parties at the time of contract formation.
KEY TERMS:
Composed of incidental and consequential damages, those damages awarded for the purpose of placing
the non-breaching party in as good a position as he would have been
had there been no breach.
EXPECTATION DAMAGES
ISSUE: Whether a non-breaching party to a contract may recover damages for unforeseen losses based on another
party’s breach of contract.
w
HOLDING AND (BRANCH, J.) No. The trial court and
jury incorrectly assessed Hawkins’ damREASONING:
w
w
ages based on McGee’s breach. When
one party breaches a contract, the non-breaching party may recover
damages based on the difference between the value of the contract as
fully performed and the actual value of the non-breaching party’s
present condition, plus any incidental damages reasonably foresee-
9
Contracts
Quimbee.com