Hawkins v Mcgee
Facts: (P) had a burn on his hand that (D) said that he could repair with a skin graph “100%”. The operation did not go according to plan and the result left (P) with a bad hand or at the least, not up the 100% standard as promised. Rules: “We therefore conclude that the true measure of the plaintiff’s damage in the present case is the difference between the value to him of a perfect hand or a good hand, such as the jury found the defendant promised him, and the value of his hand in its present condition, including any incidental consequences fairly within the contemplation of the parties when they made their contract.” Sutherland, Damages
“As a general rule, the measure of the vendee's damages is the difference between the value of the goods as they would have been if the warranty as to quality had been true, and the actual value at the time of the sale, including gains prevented and losses sustained, and such other damages as could be reasonably anticipated by the parties as likely to be caused by the vendor's failure to keep his agreement, and could not by reasonable care on the part of the vendee have been avoided.” Union Bank v. Blanchard, 65 N. H. 21, 23, 18 A. 90, 91;
Issues: What amount of restitution should (P) receive for the botched operation? What should determine the amount of restitution that (P) should receive?
Holding: A new trial was given
Reasoning: The court ruled the lower court was erroneous in their allotment of payment to (P) from the (D). The amount that (P) should receive is whatever a 100% hand was worth minus whatever he has now. The lower court seemed like they awarded the (P) money for pain and suffering, future operations, and the cost of the operation. This should not be the case. Pain and suffering would have been an accept result in going through the operation. If (P) collects for damages he collects as if had had gone through the operation and received a good hand (he receives the good hand by being paid what a good hand was worth to him minus what he has now).