6.
The answer is: C
Explanation
The correct option is C: Hedley Vs Baxendal. This case is related to the law laid down under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which deals with the compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.
The case of Hedley Vs Baxendal is a landmark case in the law of contract, which established the principle that the damages awarded for a breach of contract should be limited to the losses that are reasonably foreseeable by both parties at the time of making the contract. In other words, the damages should not include any remote or indirect losses that are not within the contemplation of the parties.
The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiffs, Hedley and Co., were millers and corn merchants who hired the defendants, Baxendal and Co., to transport a broken crankshaft from their mill to an engineer in Greenwich for repair. The defendants were aware that the mill was stopped due to the broken crankshaft, but they were not informed that the plaintiffs did not have a spare one. The defendants delayed the delivery of the crankshaft by several days due to their negligence, which caused the plaintiffs to lose profits from the stoppage of the mill. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for the loss of profits as damages for the breach of contract.
The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the loss of profits, as they were not a natural and probable consequence of the breach, nor were they communicated to the defendants as a special circumstance. The court ruled that the defendants could only be liable for the losses that they could reasonably foresee as arising from the breach, which in this case was only the cost of hiring a horse and cart to transport the crankshaft. The court thus limited the damages to the amount of the freight charges paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
The case of Hedley Vs Baxendal is relevant to section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as it illustrates the concept of compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. The case also shows the importance of considering the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract, as explained in the section. The case is widely cited and followed in the Indian courts as well as in other common law jurisdictions.