Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
87 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Lucy v. Zehmer
|
Drunk guys at bar
*court held that a reasonable perso would think that the seller made adequate outwar manifestations that it was a valid contract becuase he drew up the K, twice and signed it. (court refused to look at seller's private intenations and held for buyer) |
|
|
Kirksey v. Kirksey
|
Sister in laws husband dies and hubby's brother offers her to come stay with him.
*Court found no consideration given my sister i law and bro's promise was only a mere gratuity. |
|
|
Hamer v. Sidway
|
Uncle promised nephew money if h could refrain from drinking/smoking/gabling till 21.
*It was a valid K because consideration can be a forebearance of some sort and doesn't ned to benefit the promisor |
|
|
Webb v. McGowin I
|
Employee saved boss and boss agreed to pay 15/week to employee until death and then estate would pay until employees death - widow then refused to pay.
*court found that this moral obligation/past consideration was enough to suffice as valid substitute to consideration mostly because he started to make payments |
|
|
Webb v. McGowin II
|
Same story as I.
*Court upholds decisin on the theory that there was material benefit cnveyed to the promisor, in this case the boss was saved. |
|
|
Wolford v. Powers
|
old guy said name your baby after me and I will fund his education.
*The court held that there was a material benefit conveyed when he kid was named after him because this pleased his fancy therefore this was valid substitution for consideration. |
|
|
Mills v. Wyman
|
Kid, estranged from family, gets sick and another family takes care of him. Dad pomised he would pay for the expenses and then refused.
*No valid substitution for consideration becaues the name was gratituous promise wrote out of feelings of gratitude and i more or less a moral obligation. |
|
|
Manwill v. Oyler
|
Guy paid 5K in mortgage payments to D, brought claim alleging that D was supposed to pay him back.
*No valid substitution for consideration because any benefit conferred on D would have been donative and at the time of the alleged promise and is nothing more than a moral obligation. |
|
|
Rickets v. Scothorn
|
Grandfather writes promissory note to grand daughter to pay her so she can stop working and is then unable to.
*Granddaughter was entitled to the benefits of the promise based on the theory of promissory estoppel because it was reasonable for the grandfather to expect the granddaughter to rely and he paid beforehis death. Granddaughter's detrimental reliance was valid substitution for consideration |
|
|
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer
|
Employer agreed to pay woman pension uponher retirement, lady relied and retired - new office stopped paying.
*Employee was entitled to the benefits of the promise based on the theory of promissory estoppel becausethe promisor should have reasonably expected the woman to rely on the promise. Detrimental reliance was valid subsitution for consideration. |
|
|
Rule Sales v. US Bank Nat'l
|
Co. defaulted on payments with bank and bank promised not to tell their clientsthat they defaulted w/o 1st telling the co. - then the co. would pay -co. relied on this. Bank told customers who left Co.
*Promissory estoppel - bank should have foreeen that the company relied on thatpromise not to tell clients |
|
|
Drennan v. Star Paving
|
Contractor detrimentally relied on bid given by subcontractor who later withdrew bid. Contractor had to hire more expensive sub.
*Court held that it was reasonable to expect that the contractor would rely on te bid therefore promissory estoppel will allow the conractor to collect damages. |
|
|
Baird v Gimbel Bros.
|
Subcontrator made a mistake on bid and immediately withdrew - contractor ignored withdrawl and accepted days later and sued.
*Court held it was unreaonable for the contractor to rely on the bid because it was immediately withdrawn therefore promissory estoppel does not apply. |
|
|
Home Electric v. Hall
|
*Promissory estoppel cannot be used as a substitute for consideration offensively, but only defensively
Ex. - landlord promises tenant that he only need to verbally renew lease. New landlord tries to evict tenant because he didnt have lease, the tenant can use his detrimental reliance onthe promise as promissory estoppel |
|
|
Owen v. Tunison
|
buyer sends letter to seller - "will you sell me store at 123 main st for 6k?" seller responds he will only sell for 16K cash buyer says I accept.
*First letter rom beyer is offer bc it states property and amount and is manifestation of willingness to enter into bargain open negotiations. - there must be certainty and essential terms. |
|
|
Lefkowitz v. Great Mineapolis (I)
|
Guy reads paper - fur coats worth up to $100 - he took this as an offer
*Court says ad was an invitationo make an offer becaueit was not clear definite and explicit. |
|
|
Lefkowitze v. Great Mineapolis (2)
|
Guy reads ad in paper for fur scarf sellng fr $89.50 for 1 dollar on Saturday- first come, first serve.
*This was considered an offer because it was clear, definite and explicit. |
|
|
Leonard v. Pepsi Co.
|
Crazy guy though Pepsi was actually giving away a harrier jet.
*Court found this was not a valid offer because it was unreasonable and the ad referred the customer to another source- the brochure |
|
|
Dibley v. PanAm
|
Negotiations btwn Ps an PanAM - PanAm sent them a settlement offer and P sent back an acceptance but added language.
*Court held it was a counteroffer becaues the terms of the acceptance were not mirror image of the offer. |
|
|
Ruble v. Ruble
|
bro 1 orally offers to sell his interest in property for x amt. cash bro 2 sent check for half and promised to send remainder later that week. Bro 1 takes offer off table.
*Bro 2 did not send back the mirror image of what was offered therefore no binding contract. Bro 2's letter was actually a counter offer. |
|
|
CIC of Denver v. Container Advertising
|
Lender disregarded time sensitive nature of borrowers offer. Then when the lender accepted the offer, borrower withdrew it so lender sued.
*Court found that the borrower was right because a reasonable time as defined by Corbin as what a man in the same or similar situation would do. |
|
|
Foster v. West Publishing
|
Guy selling books to west and guy accepts but states what he feels would be a better offer.
*The court held that the guy manifested his assent to the terms of the offer because he stated "I accept" therfore it was a valid acceptance. - You can accept and give opinion but not accept and give a "but if" |
|
|
Dortn v. Collins
|
After buyer bought carpets from seller they discovered the carpets were composed of cheaper fiber
*Court held that the seller's acknowledgment forms were valid acceptances because the companies were doing business for years and the parties acted like it was a contract therefore it was a valid contract. |
|
|
Columbia Hyundai Inc. v. Carll Hyundai
|
2 guys negotiating a deal and D wrote in "current year."
*Court held that this was a substantial difference...Court held that 2-207 does not apply because its verbal negotiations |
|
|
Gardner v. Dunham
|
contractor sent order to manufacturer and they responded with a preprinted acknowledgment with warrant disclaimers and a provision stating that silence is aquiescence of the provision.
*Court hel that silence can be viewed as acceptance and ruled for manufacturer. |
|
|
Wood v. Lucy
|
bilateral contract. Promoter and Lady Lucy were in "contrac" where exclusively for 1 yr. promoter was the only one who could sign deals for Lucy - Lucy signed with someone else
*Court held it was an exclusive contract b/c the K stated exclusivity for oneyear, and such exclusivity required the promoter to use best efforts to promote Luct and therefore it was a valid K and Lucy breached. |
|
|
Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing
|
buyer of Beer Co. cut costs, trustees sued claiming beer co. didnt put forth best effort to sell.
*Court held that the buyer violated best efforts implied caluse b/c they cut advertising an were liable for what the hypo best efforts sales would have been and waht they actually were |
|
|
Van Valkenburgh v. Hayden
|
K btwn. book seller and book writer. Seller hired new writer instead and stopped advertisig for P'sbook.
*Breach of best effortsclause was breached when D stopped advertising not when the hired new authors. --> argue both sides of best effort and good faith |
|
|
RR v. MH and DH
|
Sperm doner contracts with surrogate and the surrogate decides that she wants to keep the baby.
*Cts. find it is contrary to public policy for women to sell babies...they looked to adoption statute and held that the woman neded to wait till the birth of the child to give it up then ct. will look to best interest of the child. |
|
|
JF v. DB
|
Sperm doner K with gestational surrogate who decided she wanted to keep the baby
*Ct. decided that the K was enforceable becaus there is not an expess law stating otherwise. |
|
|
Palmer v. Safe Auto
|
Guy ordered car from dealership who was aware of urgency but didnt have the car but had a similar one which they offered (more expensive) guy got this car and sued for difference
*Court foundthat dealership acted in bad faith b/c they (as sophisticated merchant) induced the guy to buy the more expensive car. |
|
|
Tyger v. Beer
|
Subcontractor made modifications to the contract w/o giving contractor sufficient notice.
*Court held that contractor failed to offer evidence that subcontractor acted in bad faith which would preclude contractors from exercising their free will b/c contractor culd have but didn't seek other options |
|
|
T&S Brass v. Pic
|
breaching party is asking non-breaching party for elevated shipping costs based on his breach (overseas subcontracting).
*Court held that the modification was in bad faith b/c there was no legitimate commercial reason to modify and subcontract overseas. Accordingly, the non-breaching party would not be liable for shipping costs |
|
|
Southwest v. Martin
|
Co. was bidding on a job w/ vendor and then vendor stated that there was no K. But at the meeting the vendor created the memo which containted (1) prices (2) signatures of party sought to be charged (3) product to be sold.
*Court held that memo was sufficient to indicate that there was some type of contract because it contained essential contract elements such as price, goods and parties |
|
|
Clark v. Coats United
|
Employee contends that typewritten signature at bottom was sufficient to satisfy SOF.
*Ct. held that typewritten signature was sufficient b/cit had the intention to authenticate the same. |
|
|
Polyad v. Indopco
|
Signatue in email is an acceptable signature under the statute of frauds b/c it had the intention to authenticate the same.
|
|
|
DF Activities v. Brown
|
Buyer sent check to lady for fancy chair. Lady denied conversation ever occured via sworn affadavit.
*Court held that the statute of frauds is not satisfie b/c the lady denied the existence of the phone call and the guy cannot insist that the case move forward hoping that the truth wll be revealed in discovery. |
|
|
Reigel Fiber v. Anderson Gin
|
P entered K with D for cotton D had K with independent growers to meet requirements of P (P and growers were aware of K). Price went up and growers breached. P sues D and growers
* |
|
|
Parker v. Chrysler
|
Employee of unfriendly company claims he was forced to quit under duress.
*Court held that unpleasant alternatives like resignation or job insecurity do not constitute duress therefore K is enforceable. |
|
|
Gottex v. Menczel
|
Employer sues over payment of 100K due to him from K. Worker claims he signed under duress (threatened with deportation)
*Court held that the alien signd under duress by threat b.c there was an improper threat which inducd worker to sign the K and worker had no reasonable alternatives and therefore K is void. |
|
|
In re: Marriage of Spiegel
|
Wife signs prenup to get nothing. Husband files for divorce and she says the K was voidable b/c she signed under duress.
*Court held that threat of canceling wedding does not equate to substituting the will of another and therefore K is enforceable. |
|
|
Nematollahi v. US
|
Buyer buys hous with no warranties and in giant bold letters K says "do not assume that the property is in acceptable condition" Inspection only showed hard water...Buyer found water to be contaminated and sued.
*Court found that the reliance on inspection was not justified becasue of the conspicuous language invalidating the warranties. |
|
|
Singleton v. Thomas
|
K to sell house contained "as is" clause and express warranty stating that septic tank worked properly. Buyer discovered tank did not work.
*Court held there was (1) material breach (septic system made house unlivable) (2) buyer relied upon (bought the house) (3) reliance was justife (b/c the express warranty trumps as is clause) |
|
|
Wagner v. Rao
|
Seller sold buyer clunker "as is" which he represented as being restored Mercedes buyer was looking for.
*Ct. held that an as is clause is voidable if there is a material misrepresentation. Buyer must provide evidence of misrepresentation. |
|
|
Williams v. Walker 1
|
woman K with furniture storeand did not read K. (balace of the items) Woman did not understand
*Ct. held even though these business practices are not healthy, thedid not rise to the level ofunconscionability |
|
|
Williams v. Walker II
|
Same facts as 1
*Ct. found the K was unconscionable - ct. remanded case |
|
|
Hiett v. Lake Barcroft
|
Sporting event P signed pre-injury release, became paralyzed.
*Court found that if D is negligent then the pre-injury release form is void. |
|
|
Hewitt v. Miller
|
P went scuba diving, signed waiver of right to sue then disappeared.
*Ct. Found waiver was enforceable because it was clear and unambiguous |
|
|
Johnson v. Rapid City Softball
|
(a) the more inherently dangerous or risky the recreational activity the more likely the waiver will be enforceable b/c people know and accept the risks of these activities
(b)when the pre-injury form is separate from the main K it is more likely to be deemed enforceable because it's out in the open and not hidden |
|
|
Johnson v. Curran
|
Employr fires band (who was under 1 yr. K) giving 2 weeks notice (allegedly agreed to orally)
*Court bars additional terms under the parol evidence rule if they are inconistent with the unambiguous terms of the agreemet. Here, the additional terms were the 2 week rule and tha is inconsistent to the unambiguous language of the K. |
|
|
In re: Estate of William Boyd
|
Guy gave contractor promissory note and the contractor assigned not to 3rd party. Third party sues for his money.
*Ct. allows evidence admitted to the contrary because it was clear, precise and convincing using the rationale that the parol evidence rule is to protect against fraud |
|
|
Mitchell v. Lath
|
Sellers of home originally promied to remove ice house in exchange for written agreement to buy land.
*Court found that these additiona terms were not admissible becaus in this case a structure on the land would ordinarily be included w/in the written K. |
|
|
Kilday v. Baskette
|
Buyer agrees to buy farm if seller verbally agrees to modify interest rates. Buyer makes payment with modified rates and seller sues. Seller vaguely recalls conversation.
*Additional terms are excluded under the parol evidence rule if they party remembers discussinghe additional terms. Cour finds that by the seller admitting there was a conversation about interest to be an exception to the parol evidence ruel and the evidence was permitted. |
|
|
Feltner v. D&H
|
guy ordered custom printed books from Co. and didnt pay b/c he said they agreed he didnt need to pay undril they saw profits.
*If evidence is inconsisten with the tems of K then it is inadmissible under Parol Evidence Rule. Here, evidence contradicted both written K and purchase order so it is inadmissible. |
|
|
Hunt Foods v. Doliner
|
K said options could be used ot buy Co. and seller understood that the option would only be taken if he tried to get higher bids.
*Addtional terms are only excluded if they negate some part of the K. Here, understanding would notbe inconsistent because it does not negatea part of the K it clarifies and explains the execution of the option stock. |
|
|
Snyder v. Herbery Greenbaum
|
guy orders carpet then cancels and claims it is standard practice that Ks are conditioal.
*The C. held that the conditional K arguent would ordinarily have been included in the originalcontract so therefore it is barred from evidence... it is not reasonably harmonious so it is inconsistent and not admissible |
|
|
Allmand Assoc. v. Hercules
|
Guy claims there were representations mad at negotiatins and should be allowed int evidence.
*Ct. held that because the K had a merger clause, any representations made are inadmissible under Parol Evidence Rule |
|
|
C-Thru Container Co. v. Midland
|
Co. did not place order w/ botte maker b/c they didnt send samples even though that was customary.
*Ct. held that the trade usage evidence supplements (because that's how the industry works) the contract so it is admissible under Parol Evidence Rule |
|
|
Hawkins v. McGee
|
Hairy Hand Case.
*Ct. held that there was profthat the Dr. expressly promised particular results so the measure of the kid's damages is the difference between the value to him of a perfect hand and the value of the hand in its present condition (what he expected) |
|
|
Sullivan v. O'Conner
|
Actress nose job case.
*Court held that she was entitled to expectation damages b/c the doctor expressly promised her a perfect nose so she should be placed in as good of a position had the K been performed |
|
|
Snyder v. Herbery Greenbaum
|
guy orders carpet then cancels and claims it is standard practice that Ks are conditioal.
*The C. held that the conditional K arguent would ordinarily have been included in the originalcontract so therefore it is barred from evidence... it is not reasonably harmonious so it is inconsistent and not admissible |
|
|
Allmand Assoc. v. Hercules
|
Guy claims there were representations mad at negotiatins and should be allowed int evidence.
*Ct. held that because the K had a merger clause, any representations made are inadmissible under Parol Evidence Rule |
|
|
C-Thru Container Co. v. Midland
|
Co. did not place order w/ botte maker b/c they didnt send samples even though that was customary.
*Ct. held that the trade usage evidence supplements (because that's how the industry works) the contract so it is admissible under Parol Evidence Rule |
|
|
Hawkins v. McGee
|
Hairy Hand Case.
*Ct. held that there was profthat the Dr. expressly promised particular results so the measure of the kid's damages is the difference between the value to him of a perfect hand and the value of the hand in its present condition (what he expected) |
|
|
Sullivan v. O'Conner
|
Actress nose job case.
*Court held that she was entitled to expectation damages b/c the doctor expressly promised her a perfect nose so she should be placed in as good of a position had the K been performed |
|
|
Willies Construction Co. v. Baker
|
Basement walls wrong height
*Ct. held that P was entitled to expectation damages b/c the breaching contractor did not provide evidence to show that teh correction would amount to economic waste. |
|
|
Groves v. John Wunder Co.
|
Gravel removal costs 6x fair market valueof land
*Ct. held that P was entitled to expectation damages even though the remedy and MV are disproportionate, it doesn't amount to economic waste b/c there is no destruction of physical property |
|
|
Hancock v. Northcutt
|
Alaska house, underground rods incorrectly installed.
*Ct. held that P were entitled to expectation dmages because the ownersshowed that the money would be used to remedy the problem by correcty installing the pods. |
|
|
Zehr v. Haugen
|
P got pregnant because D "forgot" to tie her tubes. Sues for cost of kid.
*Ct. held that P could sue for consequential damages (expense of raising a child) b/c pregnany was reasonably foreseeable |
|
|
Singletn v. Stegall
|
prision inmate hired lawyer who didn't do his work and how P's claim is barred under statute of limitations.
*Ct. held that he was entitled to consequential damages b/c the emotional stress was reasonable foreseeable |
|
|
Constantino v. American Achilles
|
ship hired cleaners then breached relieving cleaners of their obligations. K set price and date for completion on a certain number of ships.
*Court held that proper manner of restitution damanges is to prorate ships cleand (partial performance) to contract price. |
|
|
Lee v. Foote
|
Carpenter and plumber K to exchange services. Plumber refused to begin work so carpenter stopped working.
*Court held that carpenter is entitled to restitution damages b/c his partial performance unjustly enriched the plumber. |
|
|
Britton v. Turner
|
Employment K for 1 year. 10 months in, employee breaches and sues for partial performance.
*Ct. held that the breaching party was entitled to quantum meruit damages under quasi-K theory and prorated the amount to the K into the days worked by employee to avoid unjust enrichment |
|
|
Jaeger
|
dispute btwn. contactor and owners who breached K.
*Ct. held ht contractor w the breaching party and only entitled to damages in quantum meruit under quasi-K theory for the value part perforance (value of windows) in excess of the loss of his breach |
|
|
Freeman and Mills v. Belcher Oil
|
D retained law firm and agreed to pay for 3rd party accountants. D never paid stating that K never exsted (tort) and accountants sued.
*Ct. says that accountant was not entitled to punitive damages b/c its just a breach of K, not a tort. No extreme disregard just didn't pay and disaffirmed K. |
|
|
Contemporary Mission v. Famous Music
|
non-breaching party sued for lost opportunit such as concert tours, etc.
*Court held that the singers were not entitled to expectation damages for lost opportunity b/c they were opportunities, not certainties |
|
|
Freund v. Washington Square Press
|
Publisher breached when they did not publish P's book.
*Ct. held that the writer was entitled to expectation damages b/c the royalties on book were reasonably certain and foreseeable. |
|
|
Lexington Products Limited v. B.D. Communications
|
Court held the party was entitled to expectation damages because they provided hard evidence based on scientific calculations
|
|
|
Vine v. Orchard Hills
|
Liquidated damages clause allowed seler to keep down payment when buyer repudiated. Buyer argues that the property increased in value therefore unjust enrichment.
*Ct. held that the seller was entitled to liquidated damage b/c the down payment was reasonable because value is measured at the time of breach |
|
|
Mason v. Fakhimi
|
Liquidated damages clause entitled sellr to buyes down payment. Buyer argues this is a penalty b/c seller only lost 23K (down payment was 70K)
*Court held that the liquidated damage clause was reasonable b/c the buyer was unable to show thatit was disproportionate to the actual damages. |
|
|
Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co.
|
Liquidated damages clause entitled non-breaching party to a lot of money.
*Court held that the liquidated damages clause was a penalty b/c it was designed to always assure that the non-breaching partywould be overcompensated more than its actual damages which is unreasonable and disproportionate (windfall) |
|
|
Hadley v. Baxendale
|
Common carrier breached y delayin delivery of mill shaft, causing mill to shut down.
*Ct. held that the common carrier is not liable for lsses caused by shut down mill b/c they were special circumstances (damages that do not foreseably flow from thebreach) and were not fairly and reasonably communicated to the common carrier before they contracted. |
|
|
Starmakers v. Acme
|
shipper breached by delivering 5 weeks late causing company to lose valuable customer.
*Court held that the shipper is not liable for losses because it was a special circumstance (time is of the essence) not fairly reasonably communicated at the time of the K. |
|
|
Affiliated Foods v. Puerto Rico Marine
|
Shipper breached by not delivering produce to cruise ship.
*Court held that shipper was not liable for the chartered plane (time is of the essence) b/c this special circumstance was discussed and expressely rejected by shipper before the parties entered into the K. |
|
|
Parker v. 20th Century Fox
|
actress offered "replacement" role.
*Court held that the actress did not have a duty to mitigate damages because the new role was different and inferior than what she originally offered. |
|
|
O'Brien v. Black
|
Breaching tenant left property and landlord refused prospective tenans for months until he could secure a commercial lease.
*Court held that the landlord failed to mitigate damages b/c the landlord did not act reasonably by denying prospective tenants and breaching tenant should not be liable for landlords strategic decision. |
|
|
Canadian Industrial v. Dunbar Molasss
|
breaching seller offerd buyer in the "spirit of accomodation" the product at lower than FMV price and buyer refused.
*Ct. held that the buyer was not obligated to mitigage damages by accepting the new offer from the breaching party |
