In Victoria Laundry v Newman, Asquith LJ claimed that the headnote in Hadley v. Baxendale was “definitely misleading” noting that had it been accurate, the decision would have been decided the other way. In this note, I argue that the headnote was not misleading and, even if it were, his conclusion did not follow. His interpretation lowered the standard for finding liability for consequential damage. Given the facts, Victoria Laundry would have lost, even with his new standard. His solution was simple: alter the facts.
Contracts | Law | Law and Economics
Center for Contract and Economic Organization
Center for Law and Economic Studies
Victor P. Goldberg,
A Note on Victoria Laundry,
Columbia Law & Economics Working Paper No. 577
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2073