Hawkins v mcgee case

Every law firm has lawyers who are hired by individuals to negate the charges ordered by the court against the culprits. The rules of the court of law are that when a person is convinced guilty of his or her committed crime through the court of law, the victim must then submit to the sentence declared by the court (McEvoc & Newburn, 2003). However, for the court of law to successfully come into a conclusive decision, real evidence is required to convince the suspect that the court ruling is just and legal. The objective of this paper is to reflect the Hawkins v. McGee case study and how its ruling applies to different scenarios. Additionally, the recovery of the “perfect” hand took longer time than what the defendant had promised.

The plaintiff thus sued the doctor saying that he had given a warranty that the defendant hand would be perfect and the recovery period would only take a few days. The judges ruled in plaintiff’s favor and said that plaintiff was true to be compensated for the pain that the operation caused him and the damage that the operation caused into plaintiff’s hand (Cooter & Eisenberg, 2000). If the court accepted this contention from the plaintiff’s counsel, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the defendant uttered the words attributed to him to induce the plaintiff and his father to accept the skin grafting contract despite the doctor not being so sure about the outcome of this operation. The plaintiff thus successfully raised a concern to the jury that this was an alleged contract and that the defendant had achieved his skin grafting trial from plaintiff’s surgery (Cooter & Eisenberg, 2000).

McGee, 84 N. H. 114 (N. H. The court exemplified this contact with a machine that is bought for a certain purpose. The other question is, should the measure of Hawkins’ damages include pain and impairment at the same time as ruled by the court? What is the suitable calculation of plaintiff’s damages in this case? How the ruling could be applied in Hawkins v. McGee Although the results of the contract refuted the expectations of both the defendant and the plaintiff the ruling made on the plaintiff compensation could have been alleviated. The jury should have understood that in every contract engaged, the parties involved must expect a certain probability of failure. That is the same reason that the warranty is issued in case of failure.

It is also important to learn how to apply the law of nature in such situations. Conclusion In conclusion, parties need to enter into an agreement that is honorable and achievable. In the case of Hawkins and McGee, the defendant made a blind promise to have Hawkins hand back to normal in a few days only if he accepted surgery from McGee. Having explained that he had performed some skin surgery in Germany during the war, McGee got himself in a trap on warranting a surgical contract with Hawkins. His explanation to make Hawkins’ hand 100 % perfect made these words get used against him in the court of law. This made him lose money although he later sued his negligence insurance for not getting lid of his liability.