This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Victoria (P), launderers and dyers, planned to extend their business and required a larger boiler. On April 26, 1946, P made a contract with Newman (D) to purchase a boiler, including installation on P's premises. Delivery was arranged for June 5. While the boiler was being dismantled by the third parties, under contract with the D, it rolled over and sustained damage, and delivery to P was delayed until November 8, 1946. During negotiations, D was aware of the nature of P's business. D had been informed that P intended to put the boiler in use in the shortest possible space of time. P even hired additional employees in anticipation of the June delivery. P sued D claiming as damages their loss of business profits. The trial judge allowed a sum for damages (110 pounds) under certain minor heads but disallowed the claim for loss of profits on the ground that it was based on special circumstances which had not been drawn to the attention of D, and therefore came within the second rule in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.