td6624 wrote:how would you apply it without pointing out what it is
For starters, you're really just learning about the law in general and rarely learning specifics (civ pro and con law being obvious exceptions). You'll see example cases and example laws, and when exam time comes generally your hypothetical is in a hypothetical location and you just apply law like your life depended on it. It's really not imperative to state that consequential damages are not recoverable because of Hadley v. Baxendale, which is a case from a million years ago anyway. It might be useful (i.e. points generating) to discuss why the scenario on your exam resembles (and doesn't resemble) the scenario in hadley as you make arguments about whether or not the damages requested are actually consequential or not. But that's just one method of analysis.
Hypo: I made a contract with you to fix my car on Sunday. When we made the contract, I told you that I needed my car to drive to a job interview on Monday and you charged me a higher rate than usual. You didn't finish in time and I missed my interview.
Answer: On its face, plaintiff would not be able to recover damages relating to the missed job interview because consequential damages are not recoverable in contract law. [Optional and likely not worth any points to many professors: put the phrase Hadley v. Baxendale in parens after that sentence]. In this case, however, the parties may have specifically contracted for the service to be done in time making the harm to the plaintiff more foreseeable than in a traditional consequential damages case. [More analysis about the facts] [Optional: compare this fact pattern to Hadley, pointing out why the parties being informed of the potential damages should or should not change the analysis]. [Optional: reach a conclusion].
Basically you're just toying with legal concepts, and the cases you read are interesting examples of them much mroe frequently than they are THE LAW.