MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT. 509 



where all this is done, and I shall feel obliged if you will more particu- 

 larly explain. It is my wish to settle your account immediately, but 

 being at a distance I wish everything very explicit and correct. I have 

 asked H. to mark the agreements and send them to me, and I will 

 return them by the first post, with instructions to pay if correct." The 

 Court of Exchequer held that this was a sufficient acknowledgment to 

 take the case out of the Statute of Limitations ; and Pollock C.B. 

 observed, with respect to the Exchequer Chamber decision in Raclcham 

 V. 3Iarriott, that there was considerable doubt in the minds of several 

 members of the Court, whether the acknowledgment was not sufficient, 

 and that he considered it an extreme case. A\\(\.pcr Martin B. : " Rack- 

 ham V. Marriott and Hart v. Prendcrgast are cases where the acknow 

 ledgment was coupled with a hope, and not a promise to pay. It was 

 said that the amount of the debt must be ascertained ; but the contrary 

 doctrine is established in Waller v. Lacij, and other cases." 



In the case of Alder v. KeighUy the Court of Exchequer laid it down 

 as a clear rule, " that Ike amounl ivhich would have heen received, if the 

 contract Jiad heen kept, is the measure of damages if the contract is Iroken:' 

 The rule was cited by the same Court in their judgment in Hadley v. 

 Baxcndale, in which they held that where two parties had made a con- 

 tract, which one of them has broken, the damages which the other 

 party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be 

 such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally 

 (/. e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of con- 

 tract itself), or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the 

 contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the 

 probable result of the breach of it. 



The Court of Common Pleas decided in Portman v. Middlcton that 

 the correct rule of the recovery of damages is laid down in Hadleg v. 

 Baxendale, and therefore a party cannot recover as damages for a hreach 

 of contract, comjjensation which he has had to pccy for a breach of contract 

 by himself, consequent upon the nonfutfilment of the defendcmVs contract, 

 unless such compensation can reasonahly be supposed to be in the contem- 

 plation of the parties at the time they made the contract. There the 

 plaintiff contracted with one Sheaf to supply him with a fire-box for a 

 thrashing machine by a certain day, and then entered into a contract 

 with the defendant, by which he was to deliver one to him on a certain 

 day in order that he might perform his contract with Sheaf. The 

 defendant delivered an insufficient fire-box, and Sheaf brought an action 

 against the plaintiff, which was settled by him for £25 odd. The 

 plaintiff also gave £8 for a proper fire-box. In an action by the 

 plaintiff against the defendant for breach of the agreement, the jury 



