CITATION CHAINS
Who Cited Who and Why:
Case Name
Hadley v. Baxendale
Krauss v. Greenbarg
Virginia Railway v. Armentrout
In re Polemis ( responsible whether
reasonably foreseeable or not)
Christianson v. Chicago, Minneapolis
&Omaha
Hill v. Windsor
Palsgraf v. Long Isl& RR*1 (1928)
Wagon Mound I (Overseas Tankship (UK) v.
Morts Dock)
Wagon Mound
Wagon Mound II
Mauney v. Gulf Refining Co.
Wakeman v. Wheeler
Mayer v. McCreery
United Press v. New York Press Co. (absence
of situational sense)
Mack I (Mackintosh v. Thompson)
Mack II (Mackintosh v. Kimball)
1
* = opinion written by Cardozo.
Citing Cited By Why Cited
Rule for Special Damages- not
recoverable unless they can fairly &
reasonably be considered as arising
Hadley Court naturally from the breach or being
w/in contemplation of the parties
@the time K was made as a probable
result of the breach.
Doer should be responsible for
Polemis Dissent wrongful acts whether injuries were
foreseeable or not.
If the  is responsible only if the
Against
Court events were foreseeable. (In this case
Polemis
the fire wasn’t foreseeable).
Explains decision in Wagon Mound I
& the diff. b/w the two. (Here the fire
Court
I was foreseeable & there wasn’t
contributory neg.).
Misapplies UP b/c this was an
executed K & UP was a executory K.
United Press Court (UP that in you could collect under
quantum merit in an executed but not
an excutory K).
If the arrangement is too indefinite it
United Press Court
can’t be the basis for recovery.

Bluemner v. Garvin
Moran v. Standard Oil Co* (1914,
Cardozo’s first decision)
Varney v. Ditmars^2
Rubber Trading Co. v. Manhattan Rubber
Manufacturing Co. *
2
^ = Cardozo dissented.
If an agreement is so uncertain &
ambiguous that the ct. is unable to
collect from it what the parties
intended the ct. cannot enforce it, &
since there is no obligation there is
United Press Court
no K. If the offer in a case is so
indefinite that it is impossible for
the ct. to decide what it means &
fix the legal liability of the parties it
isn’t enforceable.
1) No K b/c too indefinite.
2) Limits holding of UPI- says UPI
was not intended to say that K was
unenforceable unless prince was
expressly mentioned & determined.
3) If agreement is vague &
1 )UPI 1)  indefinite parole proof c/n be
2) UPI 2) Court resorted to.
3) UPI 3) Court 4) Vague & indefinite K’s cannot
4) Bluemner v. 4) Court be enforced.
Garvin 5) Court 5) UPI doesn’t prevent a recovery
5) UPI 6) Dissent upon quantum meriut in case one
6)UPI (Cardozo) party to an alleged K has performed
in reliance upon the terms thereof,
vague, indefinite, & uncertain
though they are.
6) Here there was an intent to be
bound so the court should not have
relied on UPI.

Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff Gordon *
Schlegal I (Oscar Schlegal
Manufacturing Co. v. Peter Cooper’s
Glue Refinery)
United States Rubber Co. v. Silverstein *
1) The agreement is not binding
for lack of mutuality and
consideration.
2) A promise may be lacking and
1) Moran 1)  yet the whole writing may be
2) Moran 2) Court instinct w/an obligation
imperfectly expressed. If this is so
there is a K.- Here because of the
intentions of the parties the
promise has value.
The promise, if uncertain, should
be taken in the sense “in which the
Moran Court
promisor had reasons to suppose it
was understood by the promisee.”