Facts: HAWKINS V. MCGEE Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1929 McGee (D/Appellee), a surgeon, performed a procedure on Hawkins (P/Appellant) designed to remove scar tissue from Hawkins' hand and replace it with a skin graft from Hawkins' chest. When Hawkins and his father for more information about the operation, McGee allegedly said that he guaranteed to make a \"one hundred percent good\" hand. Hawkins and his father agreed to the operation, but it was performed unsuccessfully. Because McGee had grafted skin from Hawkins's chest, the graft caused thick hair to grow on Hawkins's palm. Hawkins brought suit against McGee on the ground that McGee violated an alleged warranty for the success of the operation. Cause of Action: Negligence Breach of K Procedural History: Issue: Trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the negligence count The court, concluding that the verdict was excessive, ordered that the verdict be set aside unless the plaintiff agreed to remit everything over $500 Plaintiff refused, verdict set aside, plaintiff accepted Whether the words could possibly have the meaning imputed to them by the party who founds his case upon a certain interpretation Found for Doctor Reasoning: The purpose of this is to put the non-breaching party in as good a position as he would have been in had the breaching party kept the contract, and thus any additional losses not reasonably foreseeable to the parties at the time of contract formation cannot be considered when calculating damages. There is no basis for holding that the jury acted erroneously in finding that McGee breached an implied warranty for the success of the operation based on his statements to Hawkins. However, after concluding that a breach occurred, the jury incorrectly considered damages based on irrelevant factors. It should not have awarded damages for Hawkins' pain and suffering, as this was a necessary part of the operation that was endured by Hawkins as consideration for McGee's performance of the operation. Additionally, no damages should have been awarded for any worsening of Hawkins' hand by the operation, as damages can be sufficiently awarded based on McGee's failure to follow through with his guarantee of producing a \"one hundred percent good hand.\" Both the jury and the trial court incorrectly considered these additional factors, and the decision to set aside the verdict for damages over $500 should be remanded for reconsideration of damages under the proper standard. Opinions aren't promises A reasonable person wouldn't believe the doctor's promise of 100% cured at face value \"Not over 4 days of recovery, \"good hand\" = expression of opinion, prediction Look at intentions objectively Why an offer? 0 Experience 0 Talk of short recovery 0 Solicited P for 3 years Purpose of law is to put P in a good position as he would have been had the D kept his promise Rule of Law: 'When one party breaches a contract, the non-breaching party may recover damages based on the difference between the value of the contract as fully performed and the actual value of the non- breaching party's present condition, plus any incidental damages reasonably foreseeable to all parties at the time of contract formation