Hawkins v. McGee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section may contain original research or unattributed claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details. |
Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (N.H. 1929),[1] is a leading case on damages in contracts handed down by the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
This case is also famous for its mention in the book and film versions of The Paper Chase, as well as its use in legal education.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Hawkins' hand was scarred from contact with an electrical wire. He approached McGee, a doctor, about having the scars removed. McGee guaranteed to "make the hand a hundred percent perfect hand" or a "hundred per cent good hand". McGee used a technique of "skin grafting" that he was unfamiliar with and failed to remove the scars. Hawkins sued for damages on the pain from the operation and the damage the operation had caused to his hand.
The issue before the court was what type of damages should be awarded.
[edit] Reasoning
The court held that the amount of damages awarded should be equal to the difference between the value of what Hawkins would have received had the contract been carried out as well as any incidental losses he incurred as a result of the breach. This is known as expectation interest, (or Expectation damages) which attempts to put the plaintiff into a position where they would have been had the contract not breached. The court made a point of dismissing the argument towards damages for the pain and suffering as the suffering does not measure the value of a good hand and it had been accepted as necessary requirement for a successful operation.
[edit] Later use
This case has been a staple of casebooks on contract law for decades, and has come to be known as the "Hairy Hand" case, because the fictitious Professor Kingsfield suggested in The Paper Chase that a skin graft from the chest to the hand had made the hand hairy. The Hawkins family did not know of the case's prominence in contract casebooks until 1964 when Gail Hawkins encountered it in her first-year contracts class at Boston University School of Law.[2] The family also did not learn about the case's use in the movie until Gail's mother, Edith, saw the movie during its first run in 1972.[2]
[edit] References
- ^ Full text of the opinion
- ^ a b Fuller, Lon L.; Melvin Aron Eisenberg (2006). , 8th edition, St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West, 190-197. ISBN 0-314-15901-0.
