Hawkins v. McGee Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A doctor promised a patient a “100% perfect hand” but the surgery failed. The court established that the proper measure of damages is the difference between the value of the promised perfect hand and the hand’s actual value after the operation.
Legal Significance: This case is a foundational authority establishing the “expectancy interest” as the standard measure of damages for breach of contract, aiming to put the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed.
Hawkins v. McGee Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff George Hawkins had a scarred right hand from a childhood burn. Defendant Dr. McGee, a surgeon, approached Hawkins’s father and solicited the opportunity to perform a skin graft operation. Before obtaining consent, Dr. McGee allegedly stated, “I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand.” Relying on this promise, Hawkins underwent the surgery. The operation was unsuccessful; skin grafted from Hawkins’s chest grew thick hair on his palm, and the hand’s condition was significantly worse than before the procedure. Hawkins sued Dr. McGee not for medical malpractice (a tort claim), but for breach of a special contract to produce a specific result. The jury found for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed the trial court’s jury instruction on the measure of damages, which allowed recovery for pain and suffering and for the negative change in the hand’s condition.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What is the proper measure of damages for a breach of a special contract in which a physician guarantees a specific surgical result?
The court held that the proper measure of damages is the difference Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dol
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
What is the proper measure of damages for a breach of a special contract in which a physician guarantees a specific surgical result?
Conclusion
Hawkins v. McGee is a seminal case in contract law that solidifies Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim v
Legal Rule
The measure of damages for a breach of contract is the difference Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris n
Legal Analysis
The court first determined that a contract could have been formed. While Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A doctor’s explicit guarantee of a specific result (e.g., a “perfect