In Hadley v.Baxendale,when Hadley sued because Baxendale took unnecessary time to get a crankshaft repaired,causing Hadley's mill to close for an extended time,the court found
A) Baxendale owed Hadley compensatory damages because the mill was shut down for an extended time directly as a result of Baxendale's delayed delivery.
B) Baxendale owed Hadley consequential damages because the mill was shut down for an extended time as a result of Baxendale's delayed delivery and the shutdown was a foreseeable indirect result of Baxendale's delay.
C) Baxendale did not owe Hadley consequential damages because the extended closing time was not foreseeable despite Baxendale's delay in delivery.
D) Baxendale did not owe Hadley either compensatory or consequential damages but did owe punitive damages due to the unreasonable delay in delivery.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A) The extended time during which the mill was closed was not a foreseeable result of Baxendale's delay in delivery because most mills kept spare crankshafts, so a reasonable person would not have foreseen the closing.
k) The extended time during which the mill was closed was not a foreseeable result of Baxendale's delay in delivery because most mills kept spare crankshafts, so a reasonable person would not have foreseen the closing.
l) The extended time during which the mill was closed was not a foreseeable result of Baxendale's delay in delivery because most mills kept spare crankshafts, so a reasonable person would not have foreseen the closing.
m) The extended time during which the mill was closed was not a foreseeable result of Baxendale's delay in delivery because most mills kept spare crankshafts, so a reasonable person would not have foreseen the closing.

In Hadley V