Do you think the Hawkins boy received a windfall?

Do you think the Hawkins boy received a windfall?  Do you think Garland Coal kept a windfall?  If you had been the judge in either case, how would you have structured your award?  Remember that Hawkins v. McGee was for breach of warranty, not negligence.   What is the difference between the value of full performance and its cost?

No, he kept his incompetence a secret from Mr. Hawkins, in defiance of a doctor's moral, ethical and the Hippocratic Oath. He kept his greed, inefficiency, insufficient knowledge and inexperience above the consideration of treatment of his young patient. He falsely assured - rather guaranteed that he will make the Youngman's hand one hundred percent perfect. The compensation for the damage was inadequate and Garland Coal was let off with notional penalty and Garland Coal should be held responsible for the current pathetic state of the farm. Garland Coal should restore the farm to its original condition instead of paying paltry compensation of $300.

That is the answer above - Here is an additional question

The Peevyhouses' lawyer had options.  He didn't have to sue for damages (which turned out to be a losing strategy anyway).  What should he have done if the Peevyhouses wanted a fully restored farm more than they wanted $29,000?

Below here is the case that's being discussed

An understanding of the consequences that ensue when a contract is broken puts our analysis of the legal enforceability of contracts in proper context.  If people who broke their promises were sent to prison, contract violations would be more unusual.  But then people would be reluctant to make promises at all, and commercial activity might grind to a halt.

The purpose of the law is not to punish the defendant who broke his promises but to put the plaintiff in as good a position as he would have enjoyed if the defendant had kept his promises.  In most cases, an award of money will be the measure of the defendant's liability.  Sometimes, however, doing the arithmetic is not as simple as it sounds.

In the 1920's, before the development of medical malpractice law as we know it today, Mr. Hawkins, a New Hampshire farmer, took his son to a Dr. McGee.  The young man had burned his hand on an electrical wire in childhood, and scar tissue had formed over his palm.  Dr. McGee offered to perform a skin graft.  When Mr. Hawkins asked what to expect from the surgery, Dr. McGee said, "I will guarantee to make the hand a one hundred per cent perfect hand."

Dr. McGee neglected to say that he was inexperienced with skin graft techniques; he took the graft from young Hawkins' chest.  Sadly, the boy's hand was worse after the surgery than before.  Motion was restricted, and hair grew from the skin grafted onto the palm.

Needless to say, Mr. Hawkins and his son were not pleased and sued Dr. McGee for breach of warranty.  Dr. McGee offered to pay $500, the price of a second operation to correct the problem by a fully qualified surgeon, but the plaintiffs rejected his offer.  What should Dr. McGee have offered?  What amount of money would have put the Hawkins boy in as good a position as he would have enjoyed if the doctor had kept his promise?

In the 1950's, before the development of environmental law as we know it today, Garland Coal & Mining Company leased the Peevyhouse farm in Oklahoma for five years.  The farm contained rich coal deposits, and the company planned a strip-mining operation.  In addition to paying rent and royalties, the company agreed to restore the land to its previous condition at the end of the five-year lease period.  Garland paid the rent and royalties as agreed but failed to perform the restoration work.  Deep scars were left on the farm, and the Peevyhouses sued for breach of contract.

At the trial, an expert witness for the Peevyhouses testified that thousands of cubic yards of soil would be required to restore the farm to its previous condition.  The total cost of restoration would be $29,000.  Garland Coal's expert testified that the farm was worth less than $5,000 even if it were fully restored (remember, this is the 1950's).  What amount of money would have put the Peevyhouses in as good a position as they would have enjoyed if the company had kept its promise?

Of course the Hawkins boy must have wanted "a one hundred percent perfect hand."  But whether he would undergo surgery again was his decision, not Dr. McGee's.  The good doctor had promised "a one hundred percent hand" but had left the Hawkins boy with much less.  The court estimated the difference between what the boy was promised and what he got (100% compared to, perhaps, 70%).  The court estimated that a perfect hand was worth $10,000.  The court then decided that $3,000 would put the boy in as good a position as he would have enjoyed - to the extent that money can do so - if Dr. McGee had kept his promise.  And $3,000 was a great deal of money in those days.

The court in the Peevyhouse case believed the real estate appraiser who testified that the farm was worth $300 less than it would have been worth if Garland had kept its promise.  And since money is the measure, the court decided the company only had to pay $300 for failing to keep its promise to the Peevyhouses.

Perhaps a criminal penalty would be appropriate for a doctor who leaves scars on his patient or for a coal company that leaves scars on the environment.  But the purpose of contract law is to protect the innocent party's bargain, not to punish the promise breaker's behavior.