Re: Contract Law Assignment

Date: November 4, 2014

1- a) No, Little Boo Peep cannot recover the $ 1000.00 for the 12 months
covered by the contract, because the Loss of profits for new ventures
requisite three conditions to be awarded; that the lost profits are the
direct and proximate result of the breach; that the profits were
contemplated by the parties; and that there is a rational basis on which
to calculate the lost profits. Perma Research & Development Co. v.
Singer Co. (US Court of Appeals .2nd Circ.April 25, 1969). In the
present case Little Boo Peep cannot prove the foreseeability of the
claimed damages, she cannot prove the certainty of this loss of profits
because she has not previous activity and profits, and she did not
prove that she fulfilled her duty to mitigate the damages by searching
any other supplier to avoid the damages. Therefore, most probably she
will lose this claim.
1- b) Yes, in this case she has the right to recover the 1000.00 per month
as she fulfilled he duty to mitigate the damages because she tried to
find another supplier, her damages are certain because she has
previous profits from the same venture, and also her damages are
foreseeable because of previous activity which was known to the
supplier.

2- No, the City Slickers promise is not supported by sufficient consideration;

because even Woodsman Willie help may be qualified as consideration, but it
came before the promise was made, and therefore it is past consideration,
the rule is such consideration is not sufficient to support the promise. In
Harrington v. Taylor, (N. Carolina 1945), the plaintiff saved the defendants
life, subsequently the defendant orally promised to pay for the damages that
she suffered while she was saving him. The defendant paid a small sum, and
then stopped, she sued him, the Court ruled that consideration is not such as
would entitle her to recover at law.
3- Yes he can introduce a Parol evidence; under the parol evidence rule, the
written terms supersede statements made during the negotiations, and
extrinsic evidence of the agreement's terms is thus irrelevant and cannot be
relied upon. However, Parol evidence is admissible to explain and supplement a written
agreement where such evidence clearly shows that the writing in question was not intended to
and did not properly state the entire agreement between the parties. Dunn v. Orloff Eyeglasses,
(Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March 22, 1966)
In the present case Einstein can introduce an oral evidence to prove the condition as it was part
of the contract.