Talk:Hadley v Baxendale

Thanks to PullUpYourSocks for the pic link... what I'd like to see for the article now is an old (public domain, that is) etching-type picture of the mill as it looked at the time of the case! -- BD2412 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:12 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Isn't this case supposed to be also famous because the judge was Baxindale? Please add the information that it was OK at the time for judges to be one of the litigants.

I've never heard that (and that's really bizarre). To quote my Lawyering Skills instructor from law school: Do you have authority for that assertion, counsel? --Coolcaesar 19:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits (12-2008)[edit]

This article has been changed extensively over the last few days without discussion or explanation. Some changes have been for the better, some for the worse. I am going to try to restore the good bits that were expunged and weed out the not-so-good bits that were introduced.

First off - in this case, the term "corn" means English corn i.e. wheat, not the yellow "corn-on-the-cob" type corn. The newly introduced photo is therefore not really appropriate to the article and will be removed. In any case, the involvement of wheat in the case is merely ancillary. Prominently displaying a photo of wheat in the article would be like showing a photo of a rubber tree in the article for "car".

I don't think that all of the law and economics material should have been expunged merely because it was not referenced. If we did that to all of the law-related articles we wouldn't have much left. I think the proper route would be to tag the article to indicate that it needs referencing.

Some decently written text was scrapped without explanation. It was replaced with text that contains typos and is in some cases factually incorrect. I am inclined to restore these parts to their former state.

Please note objections here. Regards, JEpping (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be such a kill joy! Sorry about the corn - you're quite right, it was a bit of an oversight. I really wanted a photo of a crank shaft.

For law and economics, there are a whole heap of other articles I've got, but the stuff there was fluff, and when unreferenced best deleted. Wik idea 12:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9:0?[edit]

It's been pointed out to me this reproduction of the judgment appears to be abridged. Anybody know if there's a complete version, & how to address the issue of its use as a cite? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a pdf of the full judgment from mtsu.edu, noted in 2 places that the bailii.org judgment is abridged, and wrote an email to bailii.org telling them their judgment is not complete. 71.246.238.214 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob House 884 has provided better cites on the wikiProject Law talk page and I've incorporated them. 71.246.238.214 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharps?[edit]

I worked as a labourer in a flour mill one summer in college. We made flour(obviously) and 3 grades of animal feed as by-products. These were bran, middlings and SHORTS, not sharps. Not sure of British nomenclature, but I suspect someone mis- transcribed this. Toyokuni3 (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]