A Note on Victoria Laundry

6 Pages Posted: 1 Dec 2017

Date Written: October 30, 2017


In Victoria Laundry v Newman, Asquith LJ claimed that the headnote in Hadley v. Baxendale was “definitely misleading” noting that had it been accurate, the decision would have been decided the other way. In this note, I argue that the headnote was not misleading and, even if it were, his conclusion did not follow. His interpretation lowered the standard for finding liability for consequential damage. Given the facts, Victoria Laundry would have lost, even with his new standard. His solution was simple: alter the facts.

Suggested Citation

Goldberg, Victor Paul, A Note on Victoria Laundry (October 30, 2017). Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 577. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3079729 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3079729

Victor Paul Goldberg (Contact Author)

Columbia Law School ( email )

435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10025
United States
212-854-8380 (Phone)
212-854-0221 (Fax)

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics