Hadley v. Baxendale Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained 

I have an exam tomorrow and this is what I need!

I think this is something that would be helpful even for employees and employers to know. It seems to me that while the employees should be held responsible for their mistakes, employers should also know that they cannot reasonably hold employees liable for the unforeseen damages of those mistakes.

Very informative, just what I needed

love this, super helpful and much easier to grasp

Finally I understand it :) Thanks a million

Amazing video. Thank you very much.

Hadley v. Baxendale was ruled on in 1854. However, today's laws are more complex because companies have to meet compliance and quality standards and so do the sub contracting companies that they do business with.

In Canada, this can be important in employment law. Supreme Court of Canada has said employers need to act in good faith in manner of termination of an employee. Since termination of contract by either side by providing reasonable notice is known by both sides at contract formation, it is "NOT" reasonably foreseeable damages for mental distress would result from termination. It "IS" reasonably foreseeable mental distress would result if dismissal carried out unfairly or in bad faith.

Thank you

So in the instant case what was the ordinary damages hadley could claim form Baxendale?

What is the jurisdiction of this case?

Plzz tell me the section #of case?

Andy Field