Hadley v Baxendale
Okay kiddo, let me explain 'Hadley v Baxendale' in a way that you'll understand easily.
Let's say your friend has a toy that you really want. But your friend lives far away and you can't go get the toy from them yourself. So, you hire someone to deliver the toy to you.
Now, imagine that the person you hired to deliver the toy takes a long time to bring it, or worse, they lose the toy along the way! You would be very unhappy, right?
But here's the thing, you hired the delivery person to bring you the toy, and they made a promise to do it. So, you have the right to sue or take legal action against them if they don't fulfill their promise.
This is exactly what happened in the case of Hadley v Baxendale. Mr. Hadley operated a mill, and a part of the mill had broken down. He hired Mr. Baxendale to deliver the broken mill part to a repair shop, and bring it back after it was fixed. However, Mr. Baxendale took too long to deliver the part, causing Mr. Hadley a loss of profit because the mill couldn't operate without that part.
Mr. Hadley felt that Mr. Baxendale should be held responsible for his losses, and he took him to court. The court had to decide if Mr. Baxendale should pay Mr. Hadley for the losses he had suffered.
The court came to a conclusion that if Mr. Hadley had informed Mr. Baxendale that the mill was shut down and waiting for a repair, and that any delay could cause losses, then Mr. Baxendale would have been liable for those losses. But, since Mr. Hadley didn't communicate that to Mr. Baxendale, it wasn't his fault that he didn't know the importance of the delivery.
So, the court decided that Mr. Baxendale didn't have to pay for Mr. Hadley's losses, since he wasn't given any information about the importance of the delivery.
In summary, Hadley v Baxendale is a case that teaches us that a person can only be responsible for something if they were informed about its importance or the consequences of any delay in its delivery.
Let's say your friend has a toy that you really want. But your friend lives far away and you can't go get the toy from them yourself. So, you hire someone to deliver the toy to you.
Now, imagine that the person you hired to deliver the toy takes a long time to bring it, or worse, they lose the toy along the way! You would be very unhappy, right?
But here's the thing, you hired the delivery person to bring you the toy, and they made a promise to do it. So, you have the right to sue or take legal action against them if they don't fulfill their promise.
This is exactly what happened in the case of Hadley v Baxendale. Mr. Hadley operated a mill, and a part of the mill had broken down. He hired Mr. Baxendale to deliver the broken mill part to a repair shop, and bring it back after it was fixed. However, Mr. Baxendale took too long to deliver the part, causing Mr. Hadley a loss of profit because the mill couldn't operate without that part.
Mr. Hadley felt that Mr. Baxendale should be held responsible for his losses, and he took him to court. The court had to decide if Mr. Baxendale should pay Mr. Hadley for the losses he had suffered.
The court came to a conclusion that if Mr. Hadley had informed Mr. Baxendale that the mill was shut down and waiting for a repair, and that any delay could cause losses, then Mr. Baxendale would have been liable for those losses. But, since Mr. Hadley didn't communicate that to Mr. Baxendale, it wasn't his fault that he didn't know the importance of the delivery.
So, the court decided that Mr. Baxendale didn't have to pay for Mr. Hadley's losses, since he wasn't given any information about the importance of the delivery.
In summary, Hadley v Baxendale is a case that teaches us that a person can only be responsible for something if they were informed about its importance or the consequences of any delay in its delivery.