Hawkins v. McGee

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929 · Contracts

Contractsexpectation damageswarrantypromise of resultbenefit of the bargainexpectation damagesbenefit of the bargainwarranty

Facts

The defendant surgeon performed a skin-grafting operation on the plaintiff's burned hand. There was evidence that before the operation the defendant said the plaintiff would have a "hundred per cent perfect hand" or a "hundred per cent good hand," and there was also evidence that the defendant had repeatedly solicited the chance to perform the operation. The plaintiff and his father allegedly accepted those words at face value in consenting to the operation. The plaintiff claimed breach of that promise when the hand did not turn out as promised.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to let the jury find that the surgeon made a binding contractual warranty to produce a perfect or good hand, and if so, what the proper measure of damages for breach of that warranty was. The case also raised whether pain and suffering from the operation and worsened condition of the hand could be treated as separate items of contract damages.

Rule

A statement can amount to a contractual warranty if, in context, the words could reasonably be understood as intended to be accepted at face value as an inducement to consent, and they are so accepted. For breach of such a warranty, damages are measured by the difference between the value of the promised result and the value of the actual result, together with incidental consequences fairly within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. Pain and suffering necessarily incident to the operation, as part of the agreed exchange, are not separately recoverable as contract damages under this measure.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Maine, Dr. Nolan Pierce tells Lena Ortiz before a shoulder procedure, "You'll probably be back at your bakery in ten days, and I expect your arm to feel almost normal." He does not state that he guarantees any particular final condition. Lena's recovery takes six weeks and her shoulder remains stiff.

If Lena sues for breach of contract based only on Dr. Pierce's pre-procedure statements, which is the best result?

Explanation. The majority distinguished between a promise of a specific result and mere estimates about treatment duration or recovery. Statements such as when the patient will leave the hospital or return to work are construed as opinions or predictions, not contractual undertakings, absent more. Because Dr. Pierce gave only estimates and expectations, not a guarantee of a final condition, there is no contractual warranty on these facts.