This
case is the standard for contract remedies/contract damages.The standard is to give enough money to
put one is the position they would be in if the contract had gone through.This is called expectation damages.This is also called benefit
of the bargain.
Doctor
promised that an operation would make a patient's hand '100% perfect'.
It
was a very explicit claim, unlike most doctor patient claims that are
vague (i.e. "You'll be fine" "I'll do my best")
The
question of whether or not this single statement constitutes a contract
was not decided, because that wasn't the only thing the doctor said. (The
doctor solicited the patient for
the operation, and the doctor wanted to experiment on skin grafting.)
Case
was strictly a breach of contract.It was not a malpractice/negligence situation. (Not a tort)
Judge
told the jury to "award the
plaintiff for what pain and suffering he has been made to endure, and for
what injury he has sustained over and above what injury he had before."
Appellate
court overruled.
Appellate
court said, "purpose of the
law is to put the plaintiff in as good a position as he would have been
in if the contract had been kept."
Therefore,
pain and suffering doesn't count, since surgery would always include pain
Plus,
pain and suffering is only relevant as a tort and the doctor was not
found negligent.
However,
damages are due because even if the hand was the same, it still isn't as
good as it would be if the contract had been kept.
It is
difficult to determine the exact value of the loss of use of a hand.
