Contracts Wilson Outline, Study notes of Contract Law

Final outline for the semester

Typology: Study notes

2011/2012

Uploaded on 12/14/2012

citate
citate 🇺🇸

3

(3)

35 documents

1 / 8

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Contracts)Outline)
)
1. Why)should)a)promise)be)enforced?)
a. What)is)a)promise?)–)Voluntary)promise)is)that)which)is)mutually)
agreed)upon)
i. Agreement)
1. Offer)+)Acceptance)
ii. Mutuality)
iii. Enforceable)at)law)
iv. Assurance/Duty)
v. Voluntary))
2. Elements)of)a)contract)
i. Offer))
ii. Acceptance)
iii. Consideration)
iv. Legality)
v. Capacity)
3. Donative)Promises,)form,)and)reliance)
a. Simple)donative)promises)
i. Donative)promises)v.)bargain)promises)
1. A)promise)to)make)a)gift)is)not)enforceable)under)the)
common)law)of)contracts)
2. A)completed)gift)is)a)valid)and)binding)transaction)that)
is)absent)of)fraud)–)can’t)be)reversed)by)the)donor)
3. Making)a)gift)involves)“relinquishing)dominion)and)
control”)can)be)accomplished)in)several)ways)
b. Should)donative)promises)be)enforced?)
i. Advantages)
1. Promotes)a)person’s)better)instincts)
2. Increases)value)of)the)gift)to)the)donee)
3. Increases)Donor’s)satisfaction)in)giftQgiving)
4. Increases)the)frequency)of)gift)giving)
ii. Disadvantages) )
1. Raises)problems)of)proof)
2. Raises)concerns)about)deliberativeness)
3. May)be)morally)wrong)to)enforce)the)promise)
4. Requires)judicial)inquiry)into)private)matters)and)
relationships)
5. May)result)in)less)gift)giving)
c. “Conditional)Promises”))
“)I)will)do)X)if)you)do)Y”)
A)conditional)promise)can)be)a)conditional)donative)promise)or)
bargainedQforQconsideration)
i. Donative)=)Not)enforceable)
ii. BargainQforQconsideration)=)Enforceable)
d. Dougherty)v.)Salt)
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8

Partial preview of the text

Download Contracts Wilson Outline and more Study notes Contract Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Contracts Outline

  1. Why should a promise be enforced? a. What is a promise? – Voluntary promise is that which is mutually agreed upon i. Agreement 1. Offer + Acceptance ii. Mutuality iii. Enforceable at law iv. Assurance/Duty v. Voluntary
  2. Elements of a contract i. Offer ii. Acceptance iii. Consideration iv. Legality v. Capacity
  3. Donative Promises, form, and reliance a. Simple donative promises i. Donative promises v. bargain promises 1. A promise to make a gift is not enforceable under the common law of contracts 2. A completed gift is a valid and binding transaction that is absent of fraud – can’t be reversed by the donor 3. Making a gift involves “relinquishing dominion and control” can be accomplished in several ways b. Should donative promises be enforced? i. Advantages 1. Promotes a person’s better instincts 2. Increases value of the gift to the donee 3. Increases Donor’s satisfaction in gift-­‐giving 4. Increases the frequency of gift giving ii. Disadvantages
  4. Raises problems of proof
  5. Raises concerns about deliberativeness
  6. May be morally wrong to enforce the promise
  7. Requires judicial inquiry into private matters and relationships
  8. May result in less gift giving c. “Conditional Promises” “ I will do X if you do Y” A conditional promise can be a conditional donative promise or bargained-­‐for-­‐consideration i. Donative = Not enforceable ii. Bargain-­‐for-­‐consideration = Enforceable d. Dougherty v. Salt

i. Case: Young orphan nephew given note on pre-­‐printed note with “value received” already printed ii. Issue: Consideration for the promised payment iii. Holding: Nephew gave no consideration to give the aunt’s note binding (having legal force) iv. Reasoning:

  1. Not a real debt – not a creditor
  2. No value actually exchanged
  3. No bargain
  4. No consideration because of no exchange of value e. The element of form i. Nominal v. legally sufficient consideration
  5. Nominal Consideration a. Was the parties’ bargain one in substance or one in form? b. Legal result: i. If the bargain is one in substance the consideration is legally sufficient and the promisor’s promise is binding ii. If the bargain is one in form only, the consideration is deemed to be nominal, and the promise is gratuitous and unenforceable ii. Natural Formalism
  6. Natural formalism usually consists of some act that is recognized by society as carrying legal significance a. Notarization iii. With the decline of legal significance of a seal an important question arises: should the law recognize some other basis for making a gratuitous promise enforceable? Enter reliance iv. Schnell v. Nell
  7. Case: Action for breach of contract, Schnell’s wife Theresa died and her will stated each of her three heirs would get $200. Schnell agrees to pay in exchange for one cent. He did not pay. Heirs follow suit, Schnell wanted case thrown out, demurrer overruled.
  8. Issue: Was there any sufficient consideration for Schnell to pay the plaintiff $600?
  9. Holding: Court found there was no consideration
  10. Reasoning: Generally the law does not interfere with value unless the value is nominal. f. The element of reliance i. Is reliance relevant to consideration? ii. Two kinds of Estoppel
  11. Estoppel in pais:
  1. Actual reliance – Feinberg began receiving the payment, retired based on pension, she would not have retired at that time because she needed the money of the pension.
  2. Holding: enforcement of the promise only way to avoid injustice. v. Hayes v. Plantations Steel Co.
  3. Case: Hayes worked for plantations for years, announced his intent to retire, told by Marelli he would be taken care of, received $5000 for 4 years, went back each year to check to see if money would come again, Dimartinos took over company, payments stopped
  4. Hayes did not rely on the promise a. Element 1: Promise b. Element 2: not met, no expectation c. Element 3: No actual reliance d. Element 4: Assumption he can go back to work vi. D&G Stout, Inc v. Bacardi Imports, Inc vii. Walters v. Marathon Oil Co.
  5. Formation a. Offer i. The mechanics of a bargain – offer and revocation (Ch 10)
  6. What constitutes an offer a. Lonergan v. Scolnick b. Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store
  7. Termination of offeree’s power of acceptance: lapse, rejection, and counter offer a. Akers v. J.B. Sedberry Inc. b. Ardente v. Horan c. Rhode Island Dept of Transport v. Providence d. Price v. Oklahoma College of Osteopathic Med e. Culton v. Gilchrist
  8. The mechanics of a bargain – transacting at a distance (Ch 11) a. Dickinson v. Dodds b. “Mail Box” rule c. “Receipt” rule b. Acceptance i. An introduction to interpretation (Ch 9)
  9. Subjective and objective elements in the principles of interpretation of contract law a. Lucy v. Zehmer b. Raffles v. Wichelhaus c. Frigaliment Importing v. B.N.S. Intern Sales Corp d. Oswald v. Allen e. Falck v. Williams f. Cofax Evelope v. Local No 458-­‐3m

g. Embry v. Hargadine h. MCC-­‐Marble Ceramic v. Ceramica Nuova D’Agsastino

  1. Problems of interpreting purposive language a. Haines v. New York b. Spaulding v. Morse c. Lawson v. Martin Timber
  2. The role of usage, course of dealing, and course of performance a. Foxco Industries v. Fabric World b. Flower City Painting v. Gumina ii. The mechanics of acceptance – modes of acceptance (Ch 12)
  3. Acceptance by act a. Klockner v. Green b. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball c. Bishop v. Eaton
  4. Silence as acceptance a. Vogt v. Madden b. Laurel Race Courses v. Regal Construction c. Kukuska v. Home mut: Hail Tornado Ins d. Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip co e. Austin v. Burge iii. Implied-­‐in-­‐law and implied-­‐in-­‐fact – unilateral contracts revisited (Ch 13)
  5. Nursing Care Services v. Dobos
  6. Sceva v. True
  7. Day v. Caton
  8. Bastian v. Gafford
  9. Hill v. Waxberg c. Consideration i. The bargain principle and its limits (Ch 2)
  10. The bargain principle a. Hamer v. Sidway b. Davies v. Martel Laboratory Services, Inc c. Hancock Bank & Trust Co. v. Shell Oil Co. d. Batsakis v. Demotisis e. Chouinard v. Choinard f. Post v. Jones
  11. Unconscionability a. Williams v. Walker-­‐Thomas Furniture Co. b. Kirby Vacuum c. Pittsley v. Houser d. Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Service
  12. The problem of mutuality a. Scott v. Moragues Lumber Co. b. Wickham & Burton Coal Co. v. Farmers’ Lumber

e. City School District of Elmira v. McLane Construction f. Fox v. Webb g. Grossman Holdings v. Hourihan h. Advanced, Inc v. Wilks i. Aiello Construction v. Nationwide Tractor Trailer Training j. Wired Music v. Clark k. Vitex MFG Corp v. Caribtex Corp l. Ruxley Electronic and Construction v. Forsyth

  1. Mitigation – contracts for employment a. Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. b. Madsen v. Murrey & Sons Co. c. In Re Kellett Aircraft Corp d. Bank One, Texas v. Taylor e. Shirley MacLaine Parker v. 20th^ Century Fox f. Mr. Eddie v. Ginsberg g. Southern Keswick v. Whetherholt
  2. Forseeability a. Hadley v. Baxendale b. Victoria Laundry v. Newman c. Koufos v. Czarnikow d. Hector Martinez v. Southern Pacific Transport
  3. Certainty a. Kenford Co. v. Erie County b. Ashland Management v. Janien c. Rombola v. Cosindas d. Contemporary Mission v. Famous Music Corp
  4. Liquidated Damages a. Wasserman’s Inc. v. Middletown b. Lee Oldsmobile v. Kaiden c. Hutchinson v. Tompkins c. Reliance Damages i. Types of reliance damages
  5. Out of pocket costs: a. Costs incurred by the promise in reliance on the promise and prior to breach minus the value produced by those costs that can be raliazed after breach i. Calculating: generally present few problems because money is certain and known
  6. Lost opportunity costs: a. The surplus value the promisee would have enjoyed if he had taken the opportunity that was

foregone because of reliance on the promisor’s promise i. Calculating: geneally is more difficult – these costs involve a course of action that was not taken d. Reliance Interest: i. A party’s reliance interest is equal to the detriment that party incurred in reliance on the other party’s promise ii. The remedy that furthers the reliance interest is the one that puts the non-­‐breaching party in the same position as if the promise had never been made iii. The reliance measure of damages is backward looking e. Performance = breach + damages f. Restitution