200 PLEADING, EVIDENCE AND DAMAGES. 



Breach of Contract, or such as may be reasonably sup- 

 posed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at 

 the time they made the Contract, as the probable result of 

 the Breach of it, it was laid down in Iladley v. Baxendale {m), 

 that where a Contract is made under special circimistances, 

 which are communicated b}^ one of the contracting parties 

 to the other, the Damages residtiug from a Breach of the 

 Contract, which the parties would reasonably be supposed 

 to have contemplated, are the amount of Injury, which 

 woidd ordinarily follow from such a Breach of Contract 

 under the special circumstances. But if the special cir- 

 cumstances are unknown to the party breaking the Con- 

 tract, he, at the most, can only be held to have contem- 

 plated the amount of Injmy which would arise generally, 

 and in the great multitude of cases, not aifectecl by any 

 special cii'cumstances, from such a Breach of Contract. 

 Therefore in a case where a miller employed a carrier to 

 deliver a broken shaft to an engineer for repair, and the 

 carrier was guilty of an unreasonable delay in delivering 

 it, the result of which was the stoppage of the mill, and a 

 consequent loss of profits, it was held that such a loss of 

 profits should not be taken into consideration by the Jury 

 in estimating the Damages, as the carrier had not been in- 

 formed that this would be the result or the probable result 

 of his negligence [m). 

 Effect of And it is held that generally the mere notice or know- 



ledge of the special circumstances will not render the party 

 liable for the special consequences of a Breach under such 

 circmustances, or for the failure of the special purposes of 

 the contract ; unless he has expressly or impliedly contracted 

 upon the basis of such special circumstances, and under- 

 taken to be bound for the consequences. Thus, in an 

 action against a carrier for not delivering a parcel of 

 goods, the mere knowledge on his part that the parcel 

 contained a part of the machmery of a mill, without which 

 the mill could not be erected, was held not sufficient to 

 charge him with the consequences of the stoppage of the 

 mill until the machinery could be replaced ; and the 

 damages were restricted to the cost of replacing the part 

 lost, with interest upon that amoimt whilst remaining 

 unpaid {n). And it is said that "in order that the notice 

 may have any effect, it must be given under such circum- 



(;«) Hadley \. Baxendale, 2^1^.3 ., [n) Leake on Contracts, 1046, 



Ex. 179 ; Sineed v. Foord, 28 L. J., 1017, and cases there cited. 

 Q. B. 178. 



notice. 



