Hadley v Baxendale Case Study: Business Law & Academic Misconduct

This assignment provides a comprehensive analysis of the landmark case Hadley v Baxendale, focusing on its implications in business law concerning contract breaches and damages. The case revolves around Hadley's claim against Baxendale for losses incurred due to a delayed crankshaft repair. The court's judgment, delivered by the Exchequer Court, favored Baxendale, establishing the principle that special damages are recoverable only if the defendant was aware of the special circumstances at the time of contract formation. Furthermore, the assignment outlines the Sale of Goods legislation in Australia, listing the relevant acts across different territories. It also examines Kent Institute Australia’s Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure, defining academic misconduct, cheating, and plagiarism, and differentiating between minor and serious offenses. Desklib offers this document along with a wide array of study resources.

0
Business Law

1
Part A
 Date of the judgement
23 February 1854
 Name of the court
Exchequer Court
 Cause of action
Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70 is a leading case in which Hedley filed a suit against
Baxendale. The plaintiff (Hadley) was the owner of a mill, and the crankshaft of the steam
engine broke due to which the mill was closed. Joyce & Co. which was operated by the
defendant (Baxendale) entered into a contract to repair the crankshaft (Lista, 2016). The
crankshaft was not delivered within the agreed period which resulted in increasing the loss
of Hedley. The plaintiff filed a suit in order to recover the general damages and special
damages which were suffered because the mill was closed during the period. The
information regarding the liability of these special damages was not given to Baxendale.
 Name of Judges
Parke B, Alderson B, Platt B, and Martin B
 Judgement of the case and its reason
The Exchequer Court rejected the application of the plaintiff and gave the judgement in
favour of the defendant. The court provided that the reason that in order to recover special
damages the parties must be informed regarding the special circumstances. In case the
information regarding special circumstances is not given by the contractual parties, then it is
important that the breach must occur in a natural manner. In the case of Hadley v
Baxendale, the breach did not occur in a natural manner. There was no information given by
Hadley to Baxendale regarding the imposition of a legal penalty for the loss suffered by him
due to the delay of the crankshaft (Freedland et al., 2016). Therefore, the court provided the
judgement in favour of the defendant and rejected the application of claiming special

2
damages by Hadley by provided that he did not have the right to recover special damages
from Baxendale.
Part B
Sale of Goods legislation in Australia (IRC, n.d)
1. Sale of Goods Act 1972 (NT)
2. Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)
3. Sale of Goods Act 1954 (ACT)
4. Sale of Goods Act 1896 (QLD)
5. Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA)
6. Sale of Goods Act 1895 (SA)
7. Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Tas)
8. Goods Act 1958 (Vic)
Part C
Kent Institute Australia’s ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT POLICY AND PROCEDURE is implemented
to govern the academic misconduct of students and provide its definition. At the beginning
of this policy, the information regarding purpose, scope and aim is given. Its purpose is to
respect academic integrity and ethical practices by teaching students regarding their
importance. Its scope includes enrolled student and staff members of Kent Institute
Australia. The aim of this policy is to let all students and staff members understand the
importance of academic integrity and what constitute as academic misconduct (Kent, 2018).
The policy defines academic misconduct as cheating, plagiarism or other act or omission or
attempted act taken by a student. The objective of taking these actions was to gain an unfair
or unjustified academic advantage in a course for one or more individuals. Furthermore, the
definition of cheating is included in the policy which is referred to fraud, deceit or
dishonesty of a student in relation to an assessment item.
There are few examples of cheating included in the policy such as cheating by arranging paid
or unpaid assessment, completing the assessment for another student, taking an
examination for another person, unauthorised collusion, copying during example,

3
communicating during exam and others. However, the definition of cheating is not limited
to these examples only. Plagiarism is also considered as academic misconduct whether it is
self-plagiarism or another person’s work without references (Kent, 2018). Academic
misconduct is divided into two types which include minor and serious academic misconduct.
Minor academic misconduct is considered when all four conditions are fulfilled which
include alleged student has no prior record of misconduct, student is in early stage, of
course, the breach has occurred inadvertently, and the breach is not of a significant scale.
Serious academic misconduct is such misconduct which did not fulfil all terms of minor
academic misconduct.

4
References
Freedland, M., Bogg, A., Cabrelli, D., Collins, H., Countouris, N., Davies, A.C.L., Deakin, S. and
Prassl, J. eds. (2016) The contract of employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
IRC. (n.d.) The Sale of Goods Act 1895. [PDF] Available from:
https://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/_files/P89-R.pdf [Accessed 8th December 2018].
Kent. (2018) Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure. [Online] Available from:
https://kent.rtomanager.com.au/Publics/PublicsPages/DocView.aspx [Accessed 8th
December 2018].
Lista, A. (2016) International Commercial Sales: The Sale of Goods on Shipment Terms.
Abingdon: Routledge.