Topic: Two questions

Order Description Hi Please answer the two questions below, each question in one page: (1) The extent of allowable damages for the consequence of a breach of contract was defined in Hadley v. Baxendale 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854). In Hadley, plaintiff owned a mill. The drive shaft that connected the milling equipment to the steam engine broke and the mill could not function. Plaintiff hired defendant Pickford & Co. to deliver the broken shaft to the manufacturer in Greenwich for use as a pattern for the replacement shaft. “The delivery of the shaft at Greenwich was delayed by some neglect; and the consequence was, that the plaintiffs did not receive the new shaft for several days after they would otherwise have done, and the working of their mill was thereby delayed, and they thereby lost the profits they would otherwise have received.” Ibid. Plaintiff was awarded lost profits at trial and the defendant appealed. On appeal, the appellate court considered the issue of whether Pickford should be responsible for the lost profit caused by their delay in transporting the broken shaft. What do you think and WHY? (2) In Quinn v. Recreation Park Assn., (1935) 3 Cal. 2d 725, a spectator at a baseball games was injured by a foul ball. The court held that the spectator assumed risk of injury of foul ball at baseball game: “… [I]n accepting the unscreened seat, even temporarily, with full knowledge of the danger attached to so doing, she assumed the risk of injury, which precluded recovery of damages.” A few years ago several spectators were injured in a crash at a NASCAR automobile race. Do you think the injured parties have a tort claim against the owners of the racetrack? Give LEGAL reasons to