New Case Outline Final PDF

Preview

Summary

Outline of cases...

Description

Contract Law Through Case Study Allen v. Bissinger PG 5-6 F: No longer needed court reports they ordered. R: Party’s intent is judged by his outward expressions, not his unexpressed thoughts.

Meyer v. Uber Technologies PG6-7 F: Guy signed up for uber clicked I agree was pissed he couldn’t sue. R: To form a contract, there must be mutual manifestation of assent, whether by written or spoken word or by conduct.

Mutual Assent Intent to be Bound Ray v. Eurice PG 6-7 F: Changes to the building contract that were agreed upon. Builder then gets pissy and says no agree R: If you sign a contract (read it or not) is bound, absent fraud, duress, or mutual mistake. A contract is enforceable despite one party’s unilateral mistake.

Bilateral Contracts Lonergan v. Scolnick PG 7-8 F: Ad for house, guy accepts via mail, owner sells to someone else “never got mail” R: Asking a person if they are interested in buying a property doesn’t constitute an offer to sell to that person. There is no contract until the parties have agreed to some specific thing. MAILBOX

Normile v. Miller PG 8 F: Miller made changes to K. Norm thought that meant option K and waited to respond. M Sold to someone else. R: An offeree cannot enforce a contract to sell property if he did not accept the offer to sell until after the offer had been validly revoked.

Unilateral Contracts Cook v. Coldwell PG 8 F: Lady did not receive bonus R: A unilateral contract is enforceable when a promisee has engaged in substantial performance under the contract.

Sateriale v. RJ Tobacco PG 8-9 F: RJ stopped rewards gave ppl till specific date to redeem, later said merch gone before said date R: an ad is an offer when the advertiser in clear terms promised performance in exchange for thing and the recipient of the ad reasonably concluded that by acting in accordance with the request a contract would be formed.

Postponed Bargaining: “The Agreement to Agree” Walker v. Keith PG 9 F: Keith notified Walker of intent to renew lease, but the parties did not agree upon the rent. R: To be enforceable and valid, a contract to enter into a future covenant must specify all material and essential terms and leave nothing to be agreed upon as a result of future negotiations.

Quake v. Amer Airlines PG 9 F: At meeting, J said Quake would be the contractor for the project. Same day, A informed Q that its involvement with the project was terminated. R: A letter of intent to enter into a contract will be enforceable if the parties intended the letter to be contractually binding.

Consideration Hammer v. Sidway PG 8 F: Uncle promised if neph stop drink, smoke, gambling until 21 he gets $5,000. R: A party's agreement to incur a detriment= consideration.

Plowman v. Indian PG 10 F: Employees get pension checks for life. Year later they stopped pension checks. R: One cannot enforce a promise that has not been supported by consideration.

Pennsy v. Amer Ash PG 8-9 F: Agreed to use one material, it got fucked up and they want it removed. R: Sufficient consideration to form enforceable contract even though parties have not bargained for the specific terms of agreement. Dobermann v. Swaney PG 10 F: Old lady asking for him to change kids surnames. R: A contract will be invalidated for gross inadequacy of consideration if consideration is illusory.

Doughery v. Salt PG 10 F: Aunt promised money to neph for after she died he could receive. She signed note. R: A promise becomes an enforceable contract only when some consideration is provided by all parties involved. unenforceable executory gif Marshall D Food v. Baker PG 10 F: Guy signs that he gets to be prez once prez is dead. Co goes back on offer. R: Benefit to the promisor or detriment to the promisee is consideration to form a K.

UCC Mutual Assent Under UCC Jannusch v. Naffziger PG 10 F: J oral K with N to sell food. J paid part and took possession of item. Then backed out. R: oral k that is predominantly for the sale of goods may be enforced under the UCC so long as the essential terms are agreed upon.

E.C. Styberg Engineering v. Eaton PG 11 F: Eaton fell through on parts shipment. R: Enforceable k for the sale of goods, the UCC requires it be specific to essential terms such as the identity of the parties, the subject matter of the contract, consideration, a quantity term, and a price term.

Qualified Acceptance (Battle of the Forums) Princess Cruise v. GenE PG 11 F: PC wanted service on boat. Most parts on ship already. R: UCC does not apply to maritime k that are mostly for services.

Brown M v. Hercules PG 11-12 F: express purchase order for equipment. H refused to accept indemnity provision R: When an offer express limits acceptance to terms any additional terms to the offer will not become part of a k between merchants.

Paul Gottlieb v. Apls S. PG 12 F: G gave A bad yarn that ruined product and forced recall. A stop pay G sued. R: UCC- additional terms made to a contract will not be enforced if the contract terms are materially altered.

Electronic & Layered Contracting DeFontes v. Dell PG 12 F: doc didn’t say the buyer could reject terms by returning the comp R: UCC- + terms in shrinkwrap will only be part of K for the sale of goods if the agreement explicitly says consumer can reject the terms by returning.

Long v. Provide PG 12-13 F: R: Absent actual notice, browsewrap agreement is valid if the web puts a reason prude user on inquiry notice of the terms of the agreement.

Promissory Estoppel Promises Within the Family Kirksey v. Kirksey PG 13 F: Bro give house to sis then takes away R: revoked is gratuitous and thus unenforceable despite inducing the promisee to move residences in reliance on the promise.

Harvey v. Dow PG 13 F: Fam property daughter builds home on fam land w/dad help. Dad starts to dislike kid and denies the deed R: In Maine, a promisor’s actions may manifest an intent to confirm a general promise to convey real property to a promisee.

Charitable Subscriptions King v. Trustees of Boston University PG 14 F: MLK giving assets to BU w/letter stating when he dies all become their real property. MLK wife sought property back after MLK died. R: A charitable pledge is enforceable if there is a promise to give property to a charitable institution and consideration or reliance on the promise.

Promises in a Commercial Context Katz v. Danny Dare Inc. PG 14 F: Employee gets denied promised pension by employer R: A promise to pay a pension can be enforced under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Aceves v. US Bank PG 14-15 F: Lady forced to foreclose relied on false statement from bank and then still was foreclosed on despite the false promise of loan lady R: In CA, a p alleging promissory estoppel must show (1) a clear and unambiguous promise (2) reliance on the promise (3) that the promisor could reasonably know that the plaintiff would rely on the promise (4) injury to the plaintiff.

Option Contracts Berryman v. Kmoch PG 15-16 F: Guy entered option contract for $10 to buy land. He never payed the $10 so the owner sold to someone else. R: for pe as a sub for consideration, the evidence must show that the promisor reasonably expected the promisee to rely upon the promise, the promisee acted as expected, and a refusal to enforce the promise would sanction a fraud or would result in some other injustice.

Offeree’s Reliance on an Unaccepted Offer as Limitation on Revocability James Baird v. Gimbel Bros PG 16 F: Wrong quote for products, bid accepted they tried to pull out cause pricing was wrong R: PE cant be used to compel performance if the promisee has not provided consideration to the promisor.

Drennan v. Star Paving PG 16-17 F: Your case about school bid R: the offeror should reasonably expect to induce definite & substantial reliance by the offeree, & which does induce such reliance is binding on the offeror and enforceable even without consideration if enforcement is necessary to prevent injustice to the offeree.

Pop Cones v. Resorts Intr. PG 17-18 F: Talks about relocating franchise to resorts needed response on whether to renew other lease. Pops didn’t renew on resorts promise and then their promise fell through and he lost everything. R: One may enforce a promise even though the parties have not entered into a contract.

The Principle of Restitution Restitution in the Absence of a Promise Credit Bureau E. v. Pleo PG 19-20 F: Crazy guy threat suicide, wife called cops he was hospitalized. He then refused to have insurance or him pay for the fees requested. R: Under “contract implied in

law,” where one gets benefits upon another, the benefited party may be required to make restitution. Even if no consent.

8098 v. Equity Contract. PG 19-20 F: P got a list of extra work. The work was not performed by P cause the partial payment was requested & refused. P says that D did not fully pay the gen contractor and Plaintiff was not paid. R: A subcontractor may recover from a property owner under a theory of unjust enrichment.

Watts v. Watts PG 20-21 F: Unmarried wife gets screwed by greedy husband for previous work. R: Unmarried ppl may each be entitled to a share wealth jointly accumulated during cohabitation.

Promissory Restitution Mills v. Wyman PG 21 F: Kid sick gets looked after by stranger, kid dies, dad says he will pay stranger for help fees and doesn’t. R: A promise based on a moral obligation but made without legal consideration does not constitute an enforceable contract unless it is tied to a preexisting legal obligation.

Webb v. McGowin PG 21 F: W saved M life but in turn permanently damaged his own body. M promised to pay $15 biweekly for rest of life then when M died W got pissy and sued M estate. R: A kind act in the past cant support the beneficiaries later promise to pay something back.

Statute of Frauds Scope & Application Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden PG 22-23

F: Employment contract for the time of 2 years to “make good.” R: Multiple documents taken together may count as a signed writing that fulfill the statute of frauds if all docs refer to the same subject matter or transaction & at least one is signed by the party with the contractual obligations.

Beaver v. Brumlow PG 23 F: Guy built house on land w/ landowners knowledge. They put $ $$ into it then told to leave because the guy didn’t want them anymore. R: an oral contract for the sale of real property may be removed from the statute of frauds if an outsider, viewing the totality of the circumstances, could reasonably conclude that an agreement regarding the real property existed.

AK Dem Party v. Rice PG 23-24 F: Rice promised a job with AK Dem so she left her other position, moved to AK and then was told she didn’t get the job. R: The doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked to enforce an oral contract that is subject to the Statute of Frauds.

The Sale of Goods Statute of Frauds (UCC §2-201) Buffaloe v. Hart PG 24-25 F: R: One can enforce a contract falling under the Statute of Frauds when there has been partial performance of the contract.

Principles of Interpretation Joyner v. Adams PG 25-26 F: Different definitions of development someone was pissed it wasn’t built and had rent leases that had ambiguity. R: A contract provision cannot be enforced when the parties attribute different meanings to the provision.

Frigaliment Import v. BNS Int. Sales Corp PG 26-27 F: Names of chicken R: If the parties to a contract subjectively, but in good faith, construe an ambiguous term differently, courts may look to external factors to determine the proper interpretation of the term.

The Parol Evidence Rule Thompson v. Libby PG 27-28 F: Logs were sold and a written contract made. That did not include warranty and condition of logs. Verbal warranty had to be proved. R: When the written agreement is intended to be the entire agreement, parol evidence cannot be introduced to establish terms of the agreement and parol evidence cannot be introduced to establish whether or not the contract is intended to be the entire agreement.

Taylor v. St. Farm Auto PG 28 F: After signing a release form Taylor sued in bad faith against state farm even though the release form he signed said he couldn’t sue them back. Taylor was in a motor accident and was made State Farm didn’t sue more people. R: A judge may consider parol or other extrinsic evidence for the purpose of determining whether the contract language is ambiguous.

Sherrodd v. Morrison-Knudson PG 28

F: They signed a contract that made no mention of the extra money and that stated that the terms of the agreement were exclusive of any others R: The parol evidence rule provides that a party may not introduce evidence that conflicts with the express terms of a contract, unless there is evidence of mistake or imperfection or that the parties dispute the validity of the contract, or fraud that does not relate to the subject of the contract....