Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Snyder Contracts Fall 2009
Snyder Contracts Fall 2009
Snyder Contracts Fall 2009
**WHAT IS A CONTRACT?
What is a Contract?
%A contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the
performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty
% Basically, a contract is when parties make a legally enforceable promise
%A promise is a commitment or undertaking that a given event will or will not occur in the future and may
be expressed or implied from conduct, or language and conduct (so made as to justify a promisee in
understanding that a commitment has been made)
% Note: A mere promise does not give rise to an action
% A promise is legally enforceable where it:
% Was made as part of a bargain for valid consideration;
% Reasonably induced the promisee to rely on the promise to his detriment; or
% Is deemed enforceable by a statute despite the lack of consideration
%An agreement is a manifestation of mutual assent on the part of two or more persons
%A bargain is an agreement (aka “manifestation of mutual assent...”) to exchange promises or to exchange
a promise for a performance or to exchange performances
Types of Contracts
%A Contract may be of the following types:
% Express – an agreement manifested by words
% Implied-in-fact – an agreement manifested by conduct
% Implied-in-law ("quasi-contract") – not a true contract but an obligation imposed by a court despite
the absence of a promise in order to avoid an injustice
"Merchant" A "merchant" is one "who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds
himself out as having knowledge or skill particular to the practices or goods involved in the transaction" or
who employs an agent or broker in such occupation. UCC § 2-104(1)
"Good Faith" Every contract for the sale of goods imposes an obligation of good faith dealing on all
parties in its performance and enforcement. [UCC § 1-203]
%All parties, including non-merchants, are subject to UCC § 1-201(19) which defines "good faith" as
"honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned"
%Merchants are subject to an additional good faith standard, set forth in UCC § 2-103(1)(b), which
requires "honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the
trade"
%A. The Three (Money) Damages Interests: 1. Expectancy, 2. Reliance, and 3. Restitution
% Courts usually grant the promisee money damages in order to compensate for the harm to the
promisee’s interests caused by the promisor’s failure to perform the promise
%1. Injunction
% Equitable remedy in the form of a court order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an
action threatening or invading the legal right of another, or that compels a person to carry out a
certain act, e.g., to make restitution to an injured party
%REMEMBER INTENT:
% Domestic situations are different: in social or domestic where they live together, the presumption is
that legal relations were not intended
% Letters of intent
% Say “subject to” not binding
% Further negotiations may be biding
% Any procedural formalities ex. Shareholder approval may not be binding
% Relevant UCC:
% §2-204 Formation in General-- Even though one or more terms are left open a K for sale does not fail
for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a K and there is reasonably certain basis for
giving and appropriate remedy
% §2-206 Offer and Formation in Formation of Contract
%b) Leonard v. PepsiCo (District Court of New York, 1999)-- product points for fighter jet
advertisement
% It is not necessary to consider either party’s subjective intention or interpretation of the
commercial...the only thing that should be considered is what “an objective, reasonable person
would have understood the commercial to convey”
% An advertisement is not transformed into an enforceable offer merely by a potential offeree’s
expression of willingness to accept the offer through, among other means, completion of an order
form (this would be the exception, not the rule)
% How do we know what is an ad and what is an offer?
% The offer test-- (1) offer must be: clear, definite, explicit, and leave nothing open to negotiation;
(2) The reasonable person test (objective reasonable person would not have believed that the
commercial was an ofer)
% Puffery- a legal term that refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather
than objective views, such that no reasonable person would take literally
% Facts: Harrier jet case, where P tried to buy jet from D’s catalog w/o it being on the catalog
% Issue: Whether the advertisement (i.e. television commercial) constituted a valid offer?
% Holding: No, advertisements and order forms are mere notices and solicitations for offers which
create no power of acceptance in the recipient (ads are NOT offers)
% There would be no enforceable contract until D accepted the Order Form and cashed the check
% The commercial itself cannot be regarded as sufficiently definite, b/c it specifically reserved the details
of the offer to a separate writing (i.e.Catalog)
% The absence of any words of limitation such as, “first come, first served,” renders the alleged offer
sufficiently indefinite that no contract could be formed
%a) Empro Manufacturing Co. v. Ball-Co Manufacturing, Inc. (7th Circuit, 1989)
% An agreement to agree is subject to later negotiations which may fail and release the parties from the
obligation
% Intent is an objective manifestation, determined solely from the language used when no ambiguity in
terms exist
% Parties may decide for themselves whether the results of preliminary negotiations bind them, but they
do this through words
% Facts: Letter of intent by P to purchase assets of D, which eventually was sold to another party...where
in P’s letter there was a “subject to” clause
% Issue: Whether an “agreement in principle” or “letter of intent” is a binding agreement?
% Holding: It depends, but letters of intent also leave unresolved several important factors which
decrease their likelihood of existing as blinding K
% The wording of the letter indicates considerations were necessary before it becomes a contract-- just
sets the stage of negotiation-- i.e. preliminary negotiation (Rst. §26)
% What Empro could have done to prevent Ball-Co from saying “sike”:
% No contract at all
% Option Contract
% it is nothing if not binding even though some terms remain open
% Minimal Contract a.k.a. “Agreement to Negotiate in Good Faith”
% “No Shop” clause- agreement not to go and talk to other parties
% Relevant UCC:
% §2-205 Firm Offers-- an offer by a merchant to buy or sell goods in a signed writing which by its
terms gives assurance that it will be held open is not revocable, for lack of consideration, during the
time stated or if no time is stated for a reasonable time, but in no event may such period exceed three
months
%a) Ardente v. Horan (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1976)-- Termination b/c of counteroffer
% Mirror Image Rule-- The acceptance may not impose additional conditions on the offer, nor may
it add limitations
% An acceptance which is equivocal or upon condition or with a imitation is a counteroffer and
requires acceptance by the original offeror before a contractual relationship can exist
% In an offer to form a bilateral contract, the offeree must communicate his acceptance to the
offeror before any contractual obligation can come into being
% A mere mental intent to accept the offer, no matter how carefully formed, is not sufficient
% Facts: P agreed to buy real estate from D, but hinged acceptance on certain conditions (furniture), and
D refused to comply with conditions and refused to enter K
% Issue: Whether P’s letter is reasonably interpreted as a qualified acceptance (conditional) or as an
absolute acceptance together with a mere inquiry concerning a collateral matter?
% Holding: P’s letter of acceptance was conditional, and as such it operated as a rejection of D’s offer
and no contractual obligation was created
% The offeree made a counteroffer and did so not with the intent of accepting the initial terms “if not”
these
%Rejection of Offer -- A rejection of an offer by the offeree is effective when received by the offeror.
% If an offeree dispatches more than one response to an offer, regardless of whether the rejection is sent
before or after the acceptance, if the rejection is received later than when the acceptance was
dispatched, a contract is formed since an acceptance is effective upon dispatch but a rejection is
effective upon receipt.
% Nevertheless, estoppel may operate to bar enforcement of such a contract where the offeror receives
the rejection before the acceptance, and acts in reliance on such rejection
%a) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (In the Court of Appeal, 1893)-- advertisement offering reward
in use of product
% Acceptance need not be communicated if performed
% The ad was a unilateral offer in which acceptance takes the form of performance
% Ads, for the most part, are offers to anybody who performs the conditions named in the ad, and
anybody who does perform the condition accepts the offer
% Ex. Analogous to lost dog reward
% This offer is a “continuing offer”
% It was never revoked, and if notice of acceptance is required, the person who makes the offer gets
the notice of acceptance contemporaneously with his notice of the performance of the condition
% If an offer is an offer to be bound, then it is a contract the moment the person fulfills the condition
% Facts: Smoking ball ad case, where P was entitled to recover from D b/c P attempted to use D’s
smoking ball and contracted the flue
% Issue: Does one who makes a unilateral offer for the sale of goods by means of an advertisement
impliedly waive notification of acceptance, if his purpose is to sell as much product as possible?
% Holding: Yes, one who makes a unilateral offer for the sale of goods by means of an advertisement
impliedly waives notification of acceptance
% This was not mere “puff” based on fact that money was actually set aside for this reward by D
%b) Leonard v. PepsiCo (District Court of New York, 1999)-- product points for fighter jet
advertisement
% The Harrier Jet case again. Not a contract b/c it wasn’t in the catalog
% The offer here constituted an advertisement to receive offers rather than an offer of reward
% The performance that is required to accept an offer must be clearly related to that offer... Mere
preparation to perform is not enough
% The Court discusses the difference btw reward invitations and invitations to negotiate
%c) White v. Corlies & Tift (Court of Appeals of New York, 1871)-- Contract for building offices,
where silence is deemed not to be an acceptance
% Where an offer is made by one party to another when they are not together, the acceptance of it by that
other must be manifested by some appropriate act
% A mental determination not indicated by speech or put in course of indication by act to the other party
is not an acceptance that will bind the parties. D ignored the note and began work
% Note: (In general though, as soon as the answering letter is mailed, the contract is concluded-- Mailbox
Rule)
% Facts: D sent letter to P stating “Upon agreement...”, but P failed to send D actual notice that he was
accepting, instead going about and performing w/o letting D know
% Issue: Whether performance is a sufficient means of acceptance if the offer is not specific on the issue?
% Holding: No, performance is not a sufficient means of acceptance if the offer is not specific on the
issue
% P had a duty to seek out D to give notice of consent before commencing work
% While P did purchase material for the work, it cannot be proven that what he bought was intended to be
for this specific job with D
%Rst. § 30
% Form of Acceptance Invited
%d) Peterson v. Pattberg (Court of Appeals of New York, 1928)-- Termination b/c revocation before
acceptance
% If an act is requested, that very act and no other must be given
% In case of offers for a consideration, the performance of the consideration is always deemed a
condition
% The offer of a reward in consideration of an act to be performed is revocable before the very act
requested has been done
% An offer to sell the property may be withdrawn before acceptance w/o any formal notice to the person
to whom the offer is made; no matter how brief the interval
% Facts: Bag of money in hand at the door, offeror cancels...Payment of mortgage in full by certain date
to get a discount on it, and P comes to pay and D refuses to accept to payment b/c he has sold the
mortgage, and TC finds that he has rightfully terminated the offer before acceptance
% Issue: Whether, as P is approaching D intending to perform, and before actual performance is
tendered, the offer can be withdrawn?
% Holding: Yes, the offer can be withdrawn even though the condition was partly performed already by
P
% The act requested to be performed was the complete act of payment, a thing incapable of performance
unless assented to by the person to be paid
%a) Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co. (Supreme Judicial Court of Mass., 1893)-- eel skins retained by D
assumed as acceptance
% A course of previous dealing between the parties can create the reasonable expectation with the offeror
that the silence of the offeree implies acceptance
% D didn’t have a duty to notify acceptance, BUT D had duty to negate acceptance by notifying P
% Facts: Eelskins shipped to D, and D did not return them, and they were destroyed some time later
% Issue: Whether silence can be acceptance?
% Holding: Yes, a binding contract between two parties can be reasonably assumed even if the offeree
does not expressly refuse the offer that has been made to them
% This would be unjust enrichment (if you let D get away with this)
% Previous business dealings established that the buyer could accept delivery with silence, and plus he
kept the skins for a long time
%a) Specht v. Netscape Communications (District Court of New York, 2001)--Browse-Wrap case;
“Smart Download”; Browse wrap agreement not a K
% If there is no indication to assent to terms and agreements, then there is no mutual assent, thus, no
awareness of entering a K
% There has to be unequivocal manifestation of assent (by both parties)
% Promises become binding when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration is exchanged
% (1) Downloading is not assent (it’s just to obtain a product);
% (2) Affirmative action is required to express consent
% (3) The language here is suggestive; not written as a condition (e.g. “please review”)
% The sale of software is not a goods, thus not governed under UCC Article 2
% Facts:
% Issue: Are the Ps bound by this agreement b/c there was a reference to the agreement? Are they bound
to the arbitration clause?
% Holding: No, the parties did not enter into a binding contract b/c P could download w/o making
assent...so No agreement, no contract, clause was invalid
% It’s free like a free newspaper-- no sense of a contractual relationship
%b) Specht v. Netscape Communications (2d Circuit, 2002)--Browse-Wrap case; “Smart Download”;
Browse wrap agreement not a K
% Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to
a particular fact, has constrictive notice of the fact itself in all cases in which, by prosecuting such
inquiry, he might have learned such fact
% P’s apparent manifestation of consent was to terms contained in a document whose contractual nature
was not obvious
% Facts: Same as above case
% Issue: Whether P, through their acts or failures to act, manifested their assent to the terms of the
License Agreement proposed by D?
% Holding: No, a reasonably prudent offeree in these circumstances would not have known of the
existence of license terms
%c) Register.com Inc. v. Verio Inc. (2d Circuit, 2004)-- Browse-Wrap case; If a reasonable person does
know, then even by silence you would be seen to have accepted
% Rst. § 69(1)(a): Silence and inaction operate as an acceptance where an offeree takes the benefit of
offered services with reasonable opportunity to reject them and reason to know that they were
offered with the expectation of compensation
% It is standard contract doctrine that when a benefit is offered subject to stated conditions, and the
offeree takes the benefit with knowledge of the terms of the offer, the taking constitutes an
acceptance of the terms, which accordingly become binding on the offeree
% Facts: D goes to P’s website, and obtains daily updates of the WHOIS info relating to newly registered
domain names, and then D sends these entities D’s marketing info
% When P caught on, it went ahead and changed the restrictive legend to include “via direct mail,
electronic mail, or by telephone”...this was done without ICAAN consent
% Issue: Whether D is contractually bound to a contract with P, even if the terms of acceptance did not
appear until after D had submitted its query and received the data it was looking for?
% Holding: Yes, D is contractually bound to a contract with P b/c D knew what the terms stipulated and
entered the queries numerous times (once would have been ok, but not after)
%Once the court knows that the party knew subjectively of the terms of a deal, then it has been proven to the
extent that a determination can be confirmed
%You only need to require the objective test when a party claims to not be aware that an agreement had been
established
I.Discerning the Agreement
% Once there has been mutual assent (offer and acceptance) to a contract there has to be
agreement of the terms in the contract. That’s where interpretation comes into play!
% This is done in 3 parts:
% A. Interpreting the meaning of terms
% 1. Ambiguous
% 2. Vague Terms
% B. Gap Filling
% 1. Agreements to Agree
% 2. Illusory Promises
% C. Identifying which term to use
%a) Raffles v. Wichelhaus (Court of the Exchequer, 1864)-- Mistaken identity of Peerless boat used in
delivery of goods
% MUTUAL MISTAKE VOIDS CONTRACT
% Because there was conflict as to which boat was meant in contract, the Court deemed there was no
mutual assent, no “meeting of the minds”(subjective test) and ambiguity effects a material term of
the contract b/c conditions of wildly fluctuating prices arrival date is important (objective test) and
therefore, no contract
% An agreement between two parties is still binding regardless of if there is a disagreement over a
word...the intent of the original K is what matters
% Facts: Order to ship a certain quantity of cotton from India on a ship named “Peerless.” There was
confusion as to which ship was meant, P wanted Oct. but D sent Dec., and when arrived P refused to
accept the Dec. shipment
% Issue: Whether a contract is formed when one party thinks one thing and the other party means
something else?
% Holding: No, if an objective ambiguity arises that shows that there had been no meeting of the minds,
the parties have not given mutual assent to contract
% Note: The difference between latent ambiguity (each interprets the same term differently) and patent
ambiguity (a term is undefinable)
% Parol evidence pointed to the meaning of a term is allowed by the UCC, this includes usage of trade
and prior dealings between the parties
%b) Oswald v. Allen (2d Circuit, 1969)-- Swiss coin collection, mistake of what was for sale
% Taken from Raffles and Rst.§ 71(a)-- If there is an ambivalent term in a contract, understood
differently by the parties, the contract is not binding unless either party was aware of the others’
understanding
% Facts: P and D were mistaken on which collection was to be sold, D decided not to go ahead with
agreement, and P filed saying there had already been an agreement
% Issue: Was there a valid contract even though both parties had different views of what was being sold?
% Holding: Although mental assent of parties is usually not a requisite to formation of contract, this
cause is an exception b/c there is “no sensible basis for choosing between conflicting understandings
%a) Weinberg v. Edelstein (Supreme Court, Special Term, New York, 1952)-- Ladies dresses, coats
and suits
% Custom of trade defines usage here
% P should have used more restrictive terms in the contract if he wanted them enforced
% Restrictive covenants are enforced by injunction against the takers with notice, and one who
subsequently rents premises with knowledge of a prior restrictive covenant agreed to by his lessor in
favor of another tenant will be prohibited from performing (via injunction)
% Facts: Both P and D had women’s store in the same building, and D had a restrictive covenant saying
that he could not sell “dresses”...and when D began selling matching skirt-blouse combinations, P
called that a “dress” and demanded he cease and desist
% Issue: Does the term “dresses” preclude the sale of “blouse skirt” combos? What is the meaning of the
word “dress”?
% Holding: No, b/c both parties were assumed to be in the same community of discourse and therefore
either knew or had reason to know of the special meaning attached to the word “dress” in their trade
(and D was not selling a “dress”)
% Where both parties have convincing arguments, policy dictates that restrictive covenants should be
construed narrowly against the person seeking to enforce it to promote competition and free use of
land
% Important: Court looked at: 1) Express Terms, 2) Negotiation and Bargain, 3) trade usage (of the
word “dress”), 4) public policy, and 5) trends...Court also mentioned that both parties are in the
same business, and therefore they each should have knowledge of this term
%b) Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. (District Court, New York, 1960)--
What is a chicken?; no breach
% The party seeking a narrower meaning has the burden to show that is what was intended. Courts want
to encourage the party with the narrow meaning to declare it during negotiations and insert an
explicit term
% Objective meaning and trade usage permitted either interpretation
% Need to look at: 1) Express Terms, 2) Negotiation and Bargain btw 2 parties, 3) trade usage (of
the word “chicken”), 4) commercial context
% The key is that the subjective meaning of the term is irrelevant if the P c/n show that there was
subjective agreement
% Facts: D had two Ks with P, but they differed on what “chicken” meant in regard to the contract, and P
sued D for breach of warranty claiming that D delivered goods that did not meet the specifications of
the contract
% Issue: When important terms of a contract are perceived and interpreted differently by each party, may
one party hold the other liable for breach of contract?
% Holding: A party who seeks to interpret a contract’s ordinary terms in a narrower sense than is used in
everyday trade has the burden of proof to establish that meaning
i) Agreements to Agree
% Certainty, the less certain a contract is, the less likely a reasonable person would accept
a) Sun Printing & Publishing v. Remington Paper & Power-- Contract for sale of paper
% Cardozo: “We are not at liberty to revise while professing to construe.”
% Court didn’t want to seem like it was completely making a new K; not what it does
% Rule: No, the time (and price) element is essential to the formation of the contract, and inability to
agree upon this element causes the failure of the contract and neither party is bound
% Issue: Is there a contract when a term left open in the contract cannot be agreed upon by the parties?
% Policy aspect:
% Freedom from contract (same as the Empro case)
% Parties do not want to be afraid of negotiating if they might end up accidentally bind themselves to
a contract they were not assenting to yet
% If this happened, then parties would be less willing to enter contracts at all
% Parties want certainty and reliability
% Contra proferentem
% This is a rule of contractual interpretation which provides that an ambiguous term will be
construed against the party that imposed its inclusion in the K – or, more accurately, against (the
interests of) the party who imposed it
% Therefore, the interpretation will favor the party that did not insist on its inclusion
% The rule only applies if, and to the extent that, the clause was included at the unilateral insistence
of one party without having been subject to negotiation by the counter-party
% The reasoning behind this rule is to encourage the drafter of a K to be as clear and explicit as
possible and to take into account as many foreseeable situations as it can
b) Texaco v. Penzoil
% For a K to be enforceable, the terms of the agreement must be ascertainable to a reasonable degree of
certainty so that parties in good faith can find in the agreement words that will fairly define their
respective duties and liabilities
% Parties’ intent not conclusively discernible from their writings alone, extrinsic evidence of relevant
events is considered
% The agreement must be sufficiently definite for the court to be able to recognize a breach and to
fashion a remedy for that breach
% Issue: Can a K be binding even if the terms intended to be included into an agreement are too vague
and incomplete?
b) Eastern Air Lines v. Gulf Oil Corp-- exclusive gas supply K, issue on $ for renewal
% Mutuality of Obligation- Both parties need to agree to do what they are asked for
% “void for want of mutuality” means that one party was doing one thing and the other party was
doing something else that was not within what they had agreed to
% D claimed that the K was “void for want of mutuality” and was commercially impracticable, BUT P
was acting in good faith, so too bad for D
% Facts: P and D dealt with one another for decades; D supplied oil for P planes
% Issue: Did D violate the K where missing terms of quantity subjects P to the whims of D?
% Holding: YES! K is valid. The real issue is to look at the intent of the parties and to see if there is
good faith. At all times, P acted with the good faith of a merchant
% Notes: This is a requirements K b/c P is giving $ for oil in exchange for D to supply P with “any” of its
needs
% Requirements K are valid if they have good faith. Since P did not demand an exorbitant amt. of gas, it
is. There is also an element of commercial impracticability on the part of D – “too bad if you entered
into a failing contract”
b) Caspi v. Microsoft-- Ps argue D provided more expenses than it wanted to in its products
% Ps must be seen to have had adequate notice of the forum selection clause...
% Issue: Whether Ps had adequate notice of the forum selection clause when they were entering into a K
with D?
% Holding: P had adequate notice of forum selection clause - if adequate notice of forum selection clause
is provided, the clause will control
% Court took an objective anaylsis of this b/c Ps had not conceded that they had read the clause (this
is different from Carnival in that in that case, Ps did admit to reading)
% Rst. § 211-- Standardized Agreements (used b/c efficient)
%Three Tests that invoke the “UNLESS” clause (meaning that this is not an acceptance, but rather it
is either a REJECTION AND/OR COUNTEROFFER):
% 1) First Test (used) to apply the Roto-Lith case
% An offeree’s response is a conditional acceptance to the extent it states a term “materially altering
the contractual obligations sole to the disadvantage of the offeror”
% THIS HAS BEEN OVERRULED AND IS NO LONGER GOOD LAW
% 2) Second Test considers an acceptance conditional when certain key words or phrases are used, such
as a written confirmation stating that the terms of confirmation are “the only ones upon which we
will accept orders.”
% THE COURT CHOSES NOT TO FOLLOW THIS ANALYSIS
% 3) Third Test requires the offeree to demonstrate an unwillingness to proceed with the transaction
unless the additional or different terms are included in the contract
% THE COURT DOES ADOPT THIS APPROACH FOR ITS ANALYSIS, B/C IT BEST
REFLECTS THE UNDERSTANDING OF COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS DEVELOPED
BY THE U.C.C.
% The Court believes this b/c it wants to figure out the parties’ commercial bargain...(are they
willing to go ahead with the transaction? If so, then it was not a conditional acceptance)
a.Union Carbide Corp. v. Oscar Mayer Foods Corp.-- P plastic maker to D sausage wanted back taxes
to be paid by D, and D refused
% Court used § 2-207 here to analyze; Held that an alteration is material if consent to it cannot be
presumed..basically if there is an “unreasonable surprise"
% If the new term does not effect a material alteration, then silence is consent, period...
% ...But, if a new term does effect a material alteration, then the party who proposed it must
present additional evidence, beyond the term itself, to show that he was reasonable to infer
consent to the new term from the other party’s failure to object (by silence)
% Issue: Whether the tax clause materially alters the K to the extent where D’s silence regarding the
matter could not reasonably be inferred as being sufficient as an agreement of the terms?
% Holding: Construed as an indemnity clause, the tax clause altered the contract materially; and since the
clause was at best ambiguous about indemnity, consent cannot realistically be inferred from D’s
silence
b) Hill v. Gateway 2000-- Bought PC over the phone, didn’t like, but waited after 30 days
% As long as they have the opportunity to reject the terms, then the K is okay
% A vendor as master of the offer, and may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose
limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance
% A buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance
% A K need not be read to be effective; people who accept take the risk that the unread terms may in
retrospect prove unwelcome
% Similar to “Shrinkwrap liscense” cases, where the K does not form at the time of purchase, BUT
typically it forms when the purchaser makes the express indication of acceptance, for example
by declining to return the product within a specified period of time (like in this case)
% Issue: Does 2-207 apply? The big questions are: (1) When was the contract formed? (2) What are the
terms of that contract?
% Analysis: Buyer beware! The Easterbrook opinions suggest that “cash now, terms later” is standard
% What’s the best argument you can make in favor of the Easterbrook position?
% It’s a useful way to do a lot of business and it would be tiresome at best and burdensome in many
ways to have all the terms laid out at the time of the deal b/c we’re dealing with complicated
products.
% There is a lot of utility in “deal now, terms later”
% Holding: The P’s had 30 days to return if they didn’t want to accept the terms. They didn’t so D wins
i.Klocek v. Gateway-- P supposedly had 5 days from the date of the computer’s delivery to decide
whether to return it or not
% In typical consumer transactions, the purchaser is the offeror and the vendor is the offeree. P
offered to purchase the computer and the D accepted P’s offer.
% Thus, if either party is not a merchant, additional terms are proposals for addition to the K that
do not become part of the K unless the original offeror expressly agrees
% According to Official Comment 1 of UCC §2-207: § 2-207(1) and (2) applies “where an
agreement has been reached orally...and is followed by one or both of the parties sending
formal memoranda embodying the terms so far agreed and adding terms not discussed.”
% Issue: Did P agree to the arbitration clause enclosed in the package by not returning it in 5 days?
(Holding= No)
% Remember: In this case we do not go to (a), (b), or (c) in §2-207 b/c P is not a merchant
% This only applies to merchant
%ProCD and Hill is actually the current weight of authority in the courts
%Klocek actually got overturned on appeal (it did not reach $75k in dispute)
%Klocek and Step-Saver has more authority among scholars
% Ask yourself: (1) is the writing integrated (meaning, was it intended to be final)?
% IF YES – nothing to contradict (no PE)
% Ask yourself: (2) was the writing supposed to be complete or partial?
% If complete= no PE to add a term
% If partial= PE ok to add a term!
% If NO= PE rule doesn’t apply at all
% Finality of Writing--
% The more formal and complete -- the more likely it is that it represents the final agreement
% The writing need not be signed or complete in order to be deemed final
% Writing as Integration--
% A written doc that serves as a final embodiment of the agreement may be either a:
% (1) Complete integration – an expression of the parties' agreement in its entirety
% (2) Partial integration – an expression of only a portion of the agreement
% If a writing is found to be a partial integration, the parol evidence rule prevents the following types
of extrinsic evidence:
% (1) prior agreements (whether written or oral) that contradict a term in the contract;
% (2) contemporaneous oral agreements
% (3) Consistent additional terms: contemporaneous writing(s); course of dealing, course of
performance or trade usage
a.Brown v. Oliver-- Parties discussed sale of hotel to include furniture but final K did not include it
% If the terms of an agreement are proved to be final in writing, PE is necessary to figure out if other
provisions were intended by the party
% Must figure out if the writing of the K was intended to cover a certain subject of negotiation. This Test
involves three propositions:
% 1) The intent of the parties to integrate
% 2) Conduct and language of the parties and the surrounding circumstances
% 3) Particular element of the alleged extrinsic negotiation is dealt w/ at all in the writing
% Parol evidence may be used to show that an otherwise seemingly unambiguous term is in fact
reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations (extrinsic evidence)
% Issue: Whether the parol evidence rule applies to fill in a gap to cover a certain subject of negotiation,
when no mention was made when the original writing was drawn up?
% Holding: PE evidence RULE does not apply b/c it was not a complete contract
% Analysis: This is opposite of Thompson b/c you can rely on parol evidence instead of just looking to the K
to determine if the K was final. If there is nothing in the K that discusses the “terms” of the Ks then the
“term” that the P wants discussed may convince the court that the contact is partial not integrated. This K
dealt w/ land only
%Restatement, § 210:
% (1)Completely Integrated Agreement-
% an integrated agreement adopted by the parties as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of
the agreement
% (2)Partially Integrated Agreement-
% an integrated agreement other than a completely integrated agreement
% (3)Whether an agreement is complete or partially is to be determined by the court as a question
preliminarily to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol evidence rule
i.Pacific Gas and Electric v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Riggins Co-- Workers repairing a turbine damage
the rotor, workers sought to prove w/ parol evidence that the indemnity was meant to cover only
damage to third parties, not the employer’s property
% The meaning of writing can only be found by interpretation in the light of all the circumstances that
reveal the sense in which the writer used the words. The exclusion of PE regarding such
circumstances merely b/c the words do not appear ambiguous to the reader can easily lead to the
attribution to a written instrument of a meaning that was never intended
% The test of PE to explain the meaning of a written instrument is not whether it appears to the court
to be plain and unambiguous on its face, but whether the offered evidence is relevant to prove a
meaning to which the language of the instrument is reasonably susceptible
% That possibility is not limited to Ks whose terms have acquired a particular meaning by trade usage,
but exists whenever the parties’ understanding of the words used may have differed from the
judge’s understanding
% UCC § 2-202- rejects the four corners rule, assumes the business context and prior dealings were
taken for granted in forming the K
% Issue: Whether extrinsic evidence should be considered in figuring out the intentions between two
parties if the contract is ambiguous on its face?
% Holding: Yes. The argument of the D is not out of the realm of reasonableness
% The English language is ambiguous in itself, and we can not be held to any “plain language”
definitions of terms in a K
% Since the K would always be ambiguous under this reasoning, then PE can always be admitted as
evidence to the parties intentions.
% Court says that evidence cannot be used to change/add/vary terms of the K, but that evidence can be
admitted to determine what the terms are (this is where we part ways from the reasoning in
Brown)-- Once we know what the terms are, we can reject the parol evidence if they
contradict/change/add/vary those terms
a.The Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bailey-- Life ins. Policy for $5,000 with annuity of $500/yr after age
65 for 10 years. Mistakenly written as $500/yr after age 65 for life
% Issue: Whether reformation of a an agreement is allowed once an error has been detected by a party
penalized by that error?
% Holding: Yes, Court held that where there has been established beyond a reasonable doubt a
specific contractual agreement between parties, and a subsequent erroneous rendition of the
terms of the terms of the agreement in a material particular, the party penalized by the error
is entitled to reformation, if there has been no prejudicial change of position by the other party
while ignorant of the mistake
% Basically, equity will deal generously with the correction of mistakes
a.Boone v. Coe-- D told P he could rent land in TX, but promises D made not fulfilled
% Issue: May P recover for expenses incurred and time lost on the faith of a contract that is
unenforceable under the statute of frauds?
% It is the general rule that damages cannot be recovered for violation of a K that is voidable under
the statute of frauds
% It has also been held that the vendee of land under a parol contract is entitled to recover any portion of
the purchase money he may have paid, and is also entitled to compensation for improvements
% Under a K for personal services within the statute, an action may be maintained on a quantum
meruit (meaning if D had received benefits, the law would imply an obligation to pay then)
%b) Riley v. Captial Airlines, Inc.-- P supplied D w/ water methanol but lost bid and P thought it had
already made a K w/ D for at least 5 years
% Issue: Whether or not this action (recovery of merchandise, goods, and chattels by the P) is barred by
the Statute of Frauds of the State of Alabama?
% P is entitled to compensation for the loss of equipment which was purchased in a good faith
pursuant to the D’s specifications, meaning that P relied on D to the extent that it got its
product specifically to meet D’s requirements, meaning it was unique to D and therefore it
would not be possible to go ahead and sell on on the market
% e.g. Goddard case, personalized initials on the horse carriage
% Rst. § 139-- Enforcement by Virtue of Action in Reliance
% In determining whether injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise, the
following circumstances are significant:
% a) avaialability and adequacy of other remedies, particularly cancellation and restitution
% b) the definite and substantial character of the action of forebearance in relation to the
remedy sought
a) In re Realnetworks--
% Issue: Whether online license agreement constitutes a binding agreement if they are not written?
% Holding: Because electronic communications can be letters of characters formed on the screen to
record or communicate ideas by visible signs and can be legible characters that represent words and
letters as well as form the conveyance of meaning, it would seem that the plain meaning of the word
“written” does exclude all electronic communications
% Plus, the license agreement was easily detectable, in fact you had to click on it to proceed to
downloading the software (“clickwrap”), and it was easily printable and storable and as such it was
sufficient to render it written
a.Cloud Corp. v. Hasbro, Inc.-- Aquarium make who contracted sand to P, and P misjudged relevance
of the product in the market and made too much; D did not pay
% Issue: Whether the emails by P’s employee satisfy the requirement by the Statue of Frauds regarding
modification of a contract be evidenced by writing?
% Holding: The UCC does not require that the contract itself by in writing, only that there be
adequate documentary evidence of its existence and essential terms, which there was in this
case
% UCC § 2-201(1) says if more than $500, then quantity has to be put in writing somehow
% A modification of such a K would therefore also have to be written somehow
% And UCC § 2-201(2) says that if btw merchants, one wants to modify or object to something in
the K, they have 10 days after they received it to let other party know
%
%Remember: A K does not need to be in writing; only thing needed in writing is quantity
%Statute of Frauds (Policy Aspect):
% To prevent over-enforcement
% Evidentiary function (this is the policy behind the statute of frauds)
% To prevent perjury and against giving incentives to perjury
% Cautionary function
% Channeling Function/”Signaling Function”
I.Consideration
% Traditional approach to identifying an enforceable commitment
% Only the presence of valuable consideration on both sides of the bargain will make a K fully
enforceable
% Elements of consideration:
% a) Bargained exchange btw two parties (e.g. promise or return promise)
% A return promise is bargained for if it is sought by the promisor in exchange for his
promise and is given by the promise in exchange for that promise.
% b) What is bargained for must be of legal value or constitute a benefit to the promisor or a
detriment to the promisee
% The detriment element is emphasized in determining whether an exchange contains legal
value
% Function of Consideration-- To distinguish unenforceable promises from enforceable ones – i.e.
light interpretation undermines it b/c social promises become enforced
% Consideration requires a bargained for exchange in which each party incurs a legal detriment
% Meaning of Consideration-- The factors which the promisor considered when he promised and
which moved or motivated his promising. Remember: To know why a promise is binding you
need to know why the promise was made
a.Johnson v. Otterbein University-- promise to donate money to Univ to liquidate indebtedness, where
D noted specific purpose of it, amount and time to use it
% Rule: A promise to pay money as a gift may be revoked anytime before payment.
% Issue: Is P’s note an act of advantage or of detriment to the D to constitute consideration?
% Holding: No, the promise by D was w/o consideration, and therefore it was not an enforceable contract
which D was bound to
% Reasoning: Since U is not doing anything to benefit D or detriment itself, there was no bargain for
consideration and therefore no contract
%b) Hamer v. Sidway-- uncle’s reward of $5k for nephew’s purging of vices, which he did
% Rule: A promise is enforceable if it is made to induce the other side to perform
% Consideration is not measured as a benefit to the promisor (so long as a side is induced)
% A waiver of any legal right at the request of another is a sufficient consideration for a promise
(e.g. detriment)
% The P’s Detriment/Benefit need not be economic (one party does not need to profit), it deals
more with the giving up of something (i.e. the P’s right to vice)
% Issue: Was there consideration even if Uncle received nothing tangible?
% Holding: Yes, “it is enough that something is promised, done, forborne, or suffered by the party to
whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him.”
% Extra Comments: This is a unilateral K case b/c the language of the offer made it clear that the
uncle sought acceptance by performance and not by a promise to perform (unilateral K)
% Gift promises do not include consideration, and thus Court will not enforce them
% Definition of Consideration-
% a bargained for exchange
% “each party has to be inducing the other”
% Bargain Theory of Consideration is what distinguishes Johnson from Hamer v. Sidway
% Johnson was not trying to induce the University to pay off the debt
i.Dahl v. Hem Pharmaceuticals Corp-- P’s performed and the D’s were supposed to give them free
drugs for a year if they completed program. Drug not approved by FDA and so D’s breach and
claimed no consideration on the part of the P’s
% Issue: Whether promise in return for performance constituted a bargain?
% Holding: Yes b/c the Ps subjected themselves to medical tests to obtain a new drug and D got the
benefit of the testing for FDA approval. Once the Ps finished w/ the testing, a binding K was formed
and there was a bargain for consideration (this was a promise in return for performance)
% Remember: Rst. § 45-- preparing for performance is not sufficient (e.g. tying shoe to prepare to start
to walk across the bridge)
% BUT, starting the performance (e.g. beginning to walk across the bridge) IS sufficient
% Option contract is irrevocable if performance has begun
% Rst. § 62-- Ex. shipping jeans one has ordered is sufficient
% Even if the wrong pair of jeans is sent, it is still sufficient
% Courts will not inquire into the adequacy of the consideration as long as there is a bargain
2) Past Consideration
% Not sufficient consideration: if something was already given or performed before the promise was
made, it will not satisfy the “bargain” requirement
% The courts reason that it was not given in exchange for the promise when made
% Wages are not enforceable for public policy reasons
a.Moore v. Elmer-- P is fortune teller, D promises to pay her mortgage if prediction by her that he will
die before 1900 is true...and she is right
% The case voided the K b/c of wagers and past consideration
% The bargainer had already received the benefit of the bargain (the reading of his fortune)
% Services rendered upon request implies an undertaking to pay, and do not mean that what was
done as a mere favor can be turned into a consideration at a later time by the fact that it was
asked
% Both parties need to be induced to have consideration (need to have Mutual Inducement)
% D’s promise IS induced by what P had told him
% BUT, P was NOT induced by D, b/c P had ALREADY told D what he was hearing
% Service already happened by the time D made his promise
% Issue: Whether past consideration is valid consideration sufficient to create an enforceable contract?
% Holding: No, there is no consideration since there was no bargain before he sat down for reading; he
only promised to pay post reading
% Remember: Past consideration not binding except in certain situations § 86
% Bets are not enforceable (Public Policy implication)
% Cannot enforce Ks that are “mere wagers”
% Cannot enforce Ks to commit a crime
% Both parties must be induced to have consideration
% No consideration..so No enforceable promise..so No contract
3) Moral Consideration
% Is generally not enough, and does not override past consideration problems
a.Mills v. Wyman-- Dad promises to pay for nurse's prior care of now deceased son
% Moral obligation for a benefit given to another person is not consideration
% The Court will imply an exchange in some situations (discussed below)
% Issue: Is there consideration?
% Holding: No, “it is only when the party making the promise gains something, or he to whom it is made
loses something, that the law gives the promise validity....” nothing more than moral obligation. Also
you need a pre-existing obligation
% In this case, the son had long ago left family, so D was not receiving any apparent benefit
% Remember: Society has chosen to leave it up to the D’s conscience whether to pay back a purely
moral debt
% Policy Implication (cautionary)-- protect honest (and scoundrels) people from inconsiderately
making promises for nothing in exchange
% A moral obligation may only form consideration for an express promise in three cases: cases of statute
limitations, infancy, or bankruptcy
a.Exception to this rule: Webb v McGowan-- P sacrifices self to save boss’s life, and boss promises to
pay stipend for rest of life, but when boss dies, wife stops paying P
% Rule: A moral obligation is sufficient consideration to support a subsequent promise to pay
where the promisor has received a material benefit-- When the promisor gets a big benefit, it
pushes toward enforcement
% Issue: Consideration even if no bargain?
% Holding: Yes, the material benefit rule applies if there is both a moral obligation and a subsequent
promise to pay, even if there was no original duty or liability
% Note: Difference between this case and Mills is that the promissor in this case received a direct and
material benefit (i.e. the saving of his life), while in Mills the benefit was to the D’s adult son, and
not to D directly, so as a result D was not obligated to pay (BOTH CASES ARE STILL GOOD
LAW)
% Rst. § 86-- Promise for Benefit Received
% A promise made in recognition of a benefit received by the promisor from the promisee is binding
to the extent necessary to prevent injustice
% Remember: Courts are wary b/c this type of analysis may open a Pandora’s box by opening up
possibilities under moral obligation that did not exist before
a) Alaska Packers Ass’n v. Domenico-- crew in Alaska strikes for higher wages
% Rule: For good faith, the validity of K modification is going to come down to whether it is a change
necessitated by a change in circumstances (which would be okay) or if it is one party exploiting
another (the preexisting duty rule prevents extortion and coercion )
% Issue: Does the replacement K stand even if D’s rep stated he had no authority to contract and even if D
had no alternative but face losses and failure?
% Holding: No, according to the Preexisting Duty Rule, P’s offered as consideration only what they had
already contracted to do. No new consideration in modification of K
b) Brian Construction v. Brighenti-- excavation underestimate, re-contracted
% Rule(s): (1) There is an exception to Preexisting Duty Rule – where the subsequent agreement
imposes upon the one seeking greater compensation an additional obligation or burden not
previously assumed, the agreement, supported by consideration, is valid and binding
% (2) When a K must be performed under unforeseen burdensome conditions, and the parties
renegotiate a fair and equitable new K, then the new K has consideration-- Separate valid K
% Issue: Whether parties’ (2nd) agreement constituted a legally enforceable K obligating D to remove
unexpected rubble?
% Holding: Since there was no assumption of risks and unforeseen circumstances, modified K is valid
% UCC § 2-209-- Modification, Recision, and Waiver comments:
% Modification must be looked at to see if it met the “good faith” test
% Test (btw merchants or against merchants) requires observance of fair dealing in the trade, and may in
some situations require an objectively demonstrable reason for seeking such modifications
% Notes: Problems with the Preexisting Duty Rule-- It does not account for legitimate unforeseen
circumstances
% Under-enforcement
% Since not looking at the K, this could allow for enforcement of sham rules or clauses that are put
into a K
% Over-enforcement
% Need to create a new duty to have consideration be valid
% “Value in real life is subjective”- D. Snyder
C. Adequacy of Consideration
% Adequacy of consideration relates to whether the bargain involves an exchange of equal value
% Generally, however, courts do not concern themselves with whether consideration is adequate,
honoring the concept of freedom of K
% Courts do require consideration to be "sufficient", which relates to whether there is a legal detriment
incurred as part of a bargained exchange of promises or performances, i.e. nominal considerations
% When an article is fairly sold and purchased for a stipulated consideration, a court or jury could annul the
bargain if they come to the conclusion that article sold was of no value
% If the article is worth something, a court or jury could determine whether it is worth as much as has been
promised for it and if not, to reduce the amount to be paid to that point
% Quantum valebat: “as much as its worth”; an action to recover for goods sold as much as they are worth
% Quantum meruit: “as much as he/she deserves”; a theory or doctrine that permits recovery by a party for
services or materials provided despite the absence of an express K when they were accepted and used by
the D under circumstances which gave reasonable notice that the P expected to be paid for them
a.Newman & Snell’s State Bank v. Hunter-- P’s husband could not afford own funeral and left a note w/ no
worth
% Rule: Since there is no value on one-side of the deal, there is no consideration even though there was
a (attempted) bargained-for-exchanged
% When P surrendered this worthless note to D, it parted with nothing of value and D received nothing
of value, the P suffered no loss or inconvenience and D received no benefit-- Thus, the transaction
was w/o consideration
% A good faith forbearance to litigate a claim which proves to be unfounded, is sufficient for
consideration
% The claim’s validity is a factor to determine if the promise was made in good faith
% Issue: Whether there was consideration in D giving her note in place of her deceased husband’s to the
bank?
% Holding: D is not liable to pay the bank for the note. The bank was stuck with the bad debt. D did not have
any liability for her dead husband’s note
% Notes: In this case, the court does not buy that there was a bargained-for exchange
% The disparity is so great that it would be hard to believe someone would actually be bargaining for it (if
they were on the less-received side, in this case the bank)
% You cannot really measure the value of “love” (or sentimental things)
% ‘WHAT’S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?” -D. Snyder
% The item/issue of the bargained-for exchange has to be of pecuniary value
% Great disparity in the exchange will invite inquiry by the court (e.g. is this a sham?)
% See Rst. § 879-- Adequacy of Consideration; Mutuality of Obligation
% If the requirement of consideration is met, there is no addt’l requirement of
% a) gain, advantage, benefit to promissor; or loss detriment to promisee
% b) equivalence in values exchanged, or
% c) “mutuality of obligation”
% Comment: Disparity in value can also show that the consideration was a mere formality or
pretense, and such a “sham” or “nominal consideration” does not satisfy requirement of §
71-- requirement of exchange; types of exchange
%b) Dyer v. National By-Products-- P lost right foot at work, he was given leave of absence w/ full pay, but
decided to return to same position, but then fired one year later
% Forbearance is sufficient if there is any reasonable ground for the claimant’s belief that it is just to
try to enforce his claim. He must be asserting his claim in good faith.
% Issue: Whether forbearance from asserting an unfounded legal claim can act as sufficient consideration to
create an enforceable K?
% Holding: Yes, forbearance from asserting an unfounded legal claim (in this case, if P believed the
settlement agreement) may act as valuable consideration to create an enforceable K if that claim is
asserted in good faith
% From Rst. § 74 Comment-- But mere assertion or denial of liability does not make a claim doubtful, and
the fact that invalidity is obvious may indicate that it was known
% The idea of Consideration: “We want to enforce promises that are actually worth it” -Snyder
% Notes: If the claim is doubtful it IS consideration...b/c both parties are essentially taking the risk (either
benefit or detriment) in hopes that their claim will go through
% If the claim is meritless it IS consideration...as long of the P believed he could have pressed it in good faith
i.Kim v. Son-- Blood oath by D to P to him back $ lost on investment of D’s bad co. One year passed and
D still had not repaid and so P sued
% Forbearance in filing a meritless lawsuit cannot supply adequate consideration for a gratuitous
promise
% Issue: Was P’s forbearance adequate consideration of D’s blood agreement?
% P’s forbearance had no consideration b/c D never guaranteed the money on behalf of the two corporations
(he was talking about himself, but he personally did not owe the money)
% D did not personally receive any of P’s money
1) Nominal Consideration
% Nominal consideration is not valid- disparity in value, with or w/o other circumstances,
sometimes indicates that the purported consideration was not in fact bargained for but was a
mere formality or pretense
% If nominal consideration is given as a mere formality in order to create a binding K rather than as a
bargained exchange, the consideration is insufficient. See Restatement § 71
% In option Ks, a payment or promise to pay nominal consideration is sufficient consideration to make
enforceable a promise not to revoke, provided the option time is relatively short (e.g. 10 days) and the
price to be paid if the option is exercised is a fair price. See Restatement § 87
a.Schnell v. Nell-- widower D supposed to carry out wife’s will, but not wanting to pay beneficiaries. The
K indicated D’s purpose for the carrying it out: 1) the consideration for the promise to the three
beneficiaries was his wife’s love and affection and one cent, 2) that wife had been a dutiful and loving
wife and had helped him acquire the property he owned, and the beneficiaries must abstain from
collecting claims against D or his estate arising from wife’s will
% While inadequacy of consideration will not vitiate an agreement, that doctrine does not apply to a
mere unequal exchange of money
% Issue: Whether a nominal sum of money or prior acts or love and affection can act as legal consideration
sufficient to create an enforceable contract?
% The promise was simply one to make a gift
% The past services of his wife, and the love and affection he had borne her, are objectionable as legal
considerations for D’s promise, on two grounds: (1) They are past considerations and (2) the fact that D
loved his wife, and that she been industrious, constituted no consideration and past consideration
%Recitals of nominal consideration in option Ks is allowed sometimes if it is put in an integrated writing, you
can still attack the recital, and say that this is not really the K
%However, some commitments supported only by a recital of consideration are enforced despite the lack of
consideration or detrimental reliance
%Nominal consideration:
% Actually intended to be exchanged
%Recital of consideration:
% When you say in a document that there is consideration, BUT there really is not
% you are merely “reciting it” and not meaning it
% At most, it allows a rebuttable presumption of consideration
%Both of these are not consideration...BUT they are ENOUGH to lead to an option K
a.Ferrera v. A.C. Nielsen-- P says wrongful discharge after D fired her for lying on timecards. P
claimed D violated employee handbook
% Statements made in an employee handbook limiting an employer’s right to discharge employees
may be the basis for breach of implied contract and promissory estoppel claims by discharge
employees
% Issue: Whether the employee handbook constituted an implied K?
% Implied contract theory: Such statements must be a manifestation of the employer’s willingness to
enter into a bargain that would justify the employee in understanding that his or her assent was
invited
% Promissory Estoppel theory: The promise must be one which the employer should reasonably have
expected the employee to consider as a commitment from the employer
% Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 21:
% “neither real nor apparent intention that a promise be legally binding is essential to the formation
of a K, BUT a manifestation of intention that a promise shall not affect legal relations may
prevent the formation of a K”
% Remember: You CAN enter into a K by mistake (e.g. Lucy v. Zhemer)...w/o intent
% BUT, you can express manifestation of intention NOT TO BE BOUND, and this is okay to prevent the
formation of a K
1.Family Promises
a.Greiner v. Greiner-- Son says mom gave him the 80 acres, but bad bro Chester says no
% A gratuitous promise to transfer property is enforceable if the promisee had relied on it to his
detriment by moving onto the land and making improvements
% Issue: Whether a promise can be enforceable even though it does not contain any consideration?
% Holding: A promise is binding if injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise, as long as
there is a promise and there is reliance on that promise. The promise does not have to be in any
formal wording. Ritual scrupulousness is not required and manifestation, by words or conduct or
both, which the promisee is justified in understanding as an expression of intention to make a
promise, is sufficient
% D moved, he made improvements, he spent money, he lived on the land
3) Charitable Subscriptions
% The law of charitable subscriptions: a promise of this order is unenforceable if made w/o consideration
4) Promises of Pension
% If you do something that you would have done anyway, then that is not reliance on the promise and is
not supported by promissory estoppel
5) Construction Bids
% Judge Hand says that promissory estoppel does not apply to timely commercial situations
a.Drennan v. Star Paving Co-- Paving company underbid a project to a general contractor, tried to
withdraw
% Rule: If you make an offer that you should reasonably expect will cause the promisee to act in
reliance to their detriment, and it actually does cause them to act, then that offer may become
an option K if necessary to avoid injustice
% Btw the general contractor who relied on the bid and the subcontractor who made a mistake, the
fault should lie w/ the party who caused the problem
% Issue: Did the P’s reliance make the D’s offer irrevocable?
% Holding: Award of the difference btw bids.
% Analysis: An implied subsidiary promise is a promise to hold the offer open until the general
contractor accepts the big, main K. Since the subcontractor wants the job, and the subcontractor
wants the contractor to use the subcontractor, the offer by the subcontractor is irrevocable until a
reasonable time after the general K is awarded. The general relies on this promise in putting its bid
together
% This is an option contract (§87(2)) with promissory estoppel
% This is different from Dicksinson v. Dodds, b/c in that case P did not rely on D’s promise, BUT in
THIS CASE the general contractor did rely on the subcontractor
% Option contract binds the offeror
% In this case, the offeror, is the subcontractor, BUT J. Traynor reasons that “general contractor”
bound itself to “sub contractor” not b/c of the option K in of itself, but rather to a further sub-bid
submitted by “sub contractor”
% When P used D’s offer in computing his own bid, he bound himself to perform in reliance on
D’s terms
% It is reasonable to suppose that D submitted its bid to obtain the sub-K
a.Goodman v. Dicker-- radio store franchise, P fraudulently led to believe franchise would be granted
% Reliance damages are the proper measure of damages for a promissory estoppel case
% vital principle is that he who by his language or conduct leads another to do what he would not
otherwise have done, shall not subject such person to loss or injury by disappointing the
expectations upon which he acted
% Issue: If a party acts to his detriment, by relying, on the affirmative assurances of another, should he
be protected by estopping the other party from alleging anything in opposition to the natural
consequences his own course of action?
% Analysis: The court finds that the trial court was correct in awarding the P damages based on how
much they spent in reliance on having the franchise and being able to sell radios. The Ds, however,
are found to be not liable for lost profits on an initial order of radios.
% Also: think of this case in terms of damages. A injured party can only recover for reliance damages in
promissory estoppel. Thus he cannot collect profits!
a.Hoffman v. Red Owl-- P grocer was strung along to think he could own Red Owl chain store. P put
in reliance by D in expectation to manage D’s store
% Insofar as it’s necessary to prevent injustice, a promisor will be held to their promise if they
reasonably expected that promise to induce reliance on the part of the promisee and they
actually did so
% Even if there is never an offer, an enforceable promise can be found on the basis of reasonable
reliance on statements or “instructions”, especially when they come from a stronger party
% Basically the court is saying that you do not need a definite promise to be able to enforce
% BUT this case is not been followed by the courts right now (it is an outlier)
% It has not been overruled, but it is definitely “on the edge”
% The aspect that is not being followed is...that you do not need a definite promise to be able to
enforce
% Issue: Do the facts in this case make out a case of action for promissory estoppel?
% On the other hand, in a commercial situation, you’ll have parties that have more equal bargaining
power. In that case, reliance becomes less and less reasonable the more equal the parties are.
% Analysis: Yes, P meets the elements for promissory estoppel – finds sufficient promise and detrimental
reasonable reliance the result of which injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise The
court also goes over the damages and finds them all reasonable except for the damages related to
selling the small grocery store
i.Ypshanti v. General Motors-- D decided to transfer facilities to different region, unless P provided
tax abatement for keeping company in town
% A manufacturer using hyperbole and puffery in seeking an advantage or concession does not
necessarily create a promise. Does not constitute a promise to keep a collective bargaining
agreement in force for the foreseeable future as to create by promissory estoppel a continuing
duty of the employer to honor an expired agreement
% Issue: Whether D’s representations indeed constitute a promise and whether it is the type of promise
that should be enforced by the Court to prevent injustice?
% GMs statements were mere sales “puff” and expressed hopes and expectations not promises
% Also, since there is proof of hesitancy on side of D, cannot say the reliance on alleged promise was
reasonable
e) Barnes v. Yahoo
% Promissory estoppel is a breach of contract action
% The majority rule, CONTRARY TO HOFFMAN, is that there must be definite terms to have
promissory estoppel and a K
% Ex. of P’s reliance
% P waited a couple months, waiting to see if D followed with its promise, before submitting a
lawsuit
% P could have called the local news station earlier
% This shows that forbearance is based on a promise
a.Goldberg 168-05 Corp. v. Levy-- D failed to use good faith in a K with P by mismanaging store
% Good faith is not required during the negotiation stage, only during the performance stage of the
K
% A purposeful diversion to get out of lease by lowering profits is an act in violation of good faith
doctrine. By diverting business, D was not using reasonable efforts to bring profits into
existence
% Court cited Lady Duff: “a promise may be lacking and yet the whole writing may be ‘instinct
with an obligation’ imperfectly expressed
% Issue: Whether a D has a duty to conduct his business in good faith?
% D cannot avoid liability by abandoning the premises, or diverting the business to another store for the
sole purpose of bringing down the gross receipts below the specified figure in order to cancel the
lease
% Note: landlord should have explicitly prohibited opening of another store nearby or prohibited
advertising of new store
%Remember: Restatement (Third) of Contracts-- §1-201(b)(20)--"Good faith" means honesty in fact in the
conduct or transaction concerned
% “honesty in fact”--- subjective standard
% aka “good heart, empty head” dealing
% “observance of reasonable standards of fair dealing”--- objective standard
% “good faith” is NOT an obligation to be reasonable
%“good faith” is about fairness
%Almost all the states recognize the doctrine to perform a commercial K in good faith
% This does not apply so much in employment K
%Article 1 (1-304):
% general provisions that allow for good faith in Ks, even if it is not expressed
% It is implied
% employment at-will Ks is not covered by good faith
% technically this is not even a K, b/c there is no good faith and there is no consideration
%Where “good faith” has had the most controversial impact is lender liability lawsuits
a.Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Tailored Woman-- rent prices and fur court case; most important of all cases
in this section
% Absent fraud or trickery, D has a right to carry on its business in the way that suited it, so long
as it did not deviate from those very broad and general lease specifications
% Lack of foresight does not create rights or obligations
% Issue: Whether D’s alleged violation of its lease with P results in D having to be liable for additional
rent not paid for? (by moving its fur department to the 5th floor)
% The fact that P did not anticipate that the 5th floor could become “integrated” with the lower floors into
one store cannot be counted against D
% Dissent: Business practices – In every K there is an implied covenant that neither party shall do
anything which shall have the effect of injuring or destroying the right of the other party to receive
the fruits of the K
c) Stop and Shop v. Ganem-- lot rented to be supermarket was left unused
% An omission to specify an agreement in a written lease is evidence that there was no such
understanding
% Covenants will not be extended by implication unless the implication is clear and undoubted
% Justice, common sense and the probable intention of the parties are guided to construction of a
written instrument
% Issue: If it is not explicitly expressed, is there an implied stipulation to continue using lot as a
supermarket? Did P act in bad faith in transferring business to another store?
% Rule: To determine if there was an implied K, court must look at the intent of the parties in making the
K.
% Holding: No. What factors did the court look at to determine this? The flat rate rent was fair it was not
just a nominal rent with the D depending on the money from % profits (Like other cases had been).
Also the other stores opened were not done in bad faith and were in the area but not directly near the
first store, and the lease did not state what the use/purpose of the land at rent had to be
%Notes: Satisfaction clauses and cancellation “at will” clauses are examples of mutuality of obligation...they
will raise actions of good faith
% these can be seen as an illusory promise unless it is acted on in good faith
% franchise Ks can be rescinded not in bad faith (but it can be for a bad reason)
%Good faith is generally presumed
%The burden is on the person trying to prove the lack of good faith
%It is hard to prove lack of good faith
a.The Original Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Company v. River Valley Cookies, Ltd-- no
blanket duty of good faith, everyone’s out for themselves
% K law does not require parties to behave altruistically toward each other; it does not proceed on the
philosophy that I am my brother’s keeper
% K law does not impose a duty, not to “be reasonable,” but to avoid taking advantages of gaps in a K in
order to exploit the vulnerabilities that arise when contractual
I. Warranties
% Scope of performance is often denied by warranty. When parties are silent, K law supplies some
warranties by default.
2) Express Warranties
% Entail a promise to make a good for losses w/in their scope, whether or not such losses were
foreseeable, uncertain, or avoidable
% UCC § 2-313. Express Warranties by Affirmation, Promise, Description, Sample:
% 1)An express warranty is made up of the following elements:
% a) An affirmation of fact or promise made from the seller to they buyer
% b) Description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain
% c) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain
% 2) It is not necessary that words such as “warrant”, “guarantee” are used, or there is intent. An
affirmation of the value of the goods or a statement that is the seller’s opinion or commendation
of the goods does not create a warranty.
%a) Schneider v. Miller-- rusted trunk of Chevrolet corvette, sold “as is”
% An integration clause which provides that the entire agreement btw the parties is contained
within the four corners of the K is effective to waive any implied warranty
% When the buyers before entering into the K has examined the goods or the sample or model as
fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with
regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him
% Issue: Whether the D made an express disclaimer of warranty to the P that should be upheld?
% Remember: UCC §2-316 comment 7: “terms like ‘as is’ in ordinary commercial usage are understood
to mean that the buyer takes the entire risk as to the quality of the goods involved”
a.Morris v. Mack’s Used Cars-- Seller failed to disclosed to the buyer that the vehicle had been in an
accident and had been repaired
% Issue: Whether a disclaimer of warranty authorized by the Uniform Commercial Code prevents
application of the Consumer Protection Act?
% Disclaimers permitted by ... of the UCC may limit or modify liability otherwise imposed by the code,
but such disclaimers do not defeat separate causes of action for unfair or deceptive acts or practices
under the Consumer Protection Act
% Both the UCC (unless displaced by certain provisions...) and TCA establish that the invocation of one
power shall not be construed as excluding or prohibiting the use of any other available remedy
% State consumer protection laws are considered more effective (b/c federal is seen as failure)
I. Conditions
% Sometimes a performance is due only if something happens or does not happen
% Unless the condition is satisfied, nonperformance is not a breach
% A condition is not the same thing as a promise
% Express Condition-- Parties intended it and said so in words
% Condition implied in fact-- Parties intended it, did not say it in words, but nonetheless such
intention is reasonably inferable from conduct other than words
% Constructive Condition-- Where court believes parties intended it if they had thought about it at
all, or b/c by reason of the mores of the time justices requires that it operate
% aka Condition implied by law
% Condition precedent: condition is preceding what is required by performance
% e.g. buying home insurance in case your house burns (condition is buying before)
% Condition subsequent: “after the fact” where a condition is put after an incident
% e.g. house burning, and insurance co. telling you need to bring suit; this bringing of the suit is a
condition that is needed for performance (but can only occur after house actually is burned)
a.Internatio-Rotterdam v. River Brand Rice Mills-- D supposed to ship rice to P, but P failed to give D
timely notice, and so D rescinded K, so P filed suit to complete its side
% Issue: Whether lack of performance of promissory condition entitles promisee the right to back out of
the contract?
% Holding: Yes, notice of shipment instructions on or before 12/17 was a condition precedent the
performance which is required of the D, and the nonoccurrence of that condition entitled D to
rescind or to treat its contractual obligation as discharged
% This is an example of a promissory condition: P promised to give the notice and the D’s duty to ship
was conditioned on the receipt of the notice
% Remember: The mere establishment of the letter of credit was not an act of performance: it was
merely an arrangement made by the P for future performance which as to the Houston deliveries
because of P’s failure to give shipping instructions were never made
a.Howard v. Fed. Crops Ins. Corp.-- P sought to recover for tobacco crop damages caused by rain
damage, but D said P had breached a part of their agreement
% Rst. § 261-- When it is doubtful whether words create a promise or a condition precedent, they
will be construed as creating a promise...the provisions of a contract will not be construed as
conditions precedent in the absence of language plainly requiring such construction
% Issue: Did P forfeit the coverage of policy by plowing before inspection by D?
% A breach of a condition can result in a duty not to perform, but a breach of promise simply results in
damages
% Policy principle:
% Forfeitures are bad b/c doing so would lose protecting the bargain
% Courts want to protect the bargain, in order to protect the K
% Think in terms of reliability (in favor of insurer)
% Notes: In this case:
% “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another” (aka expressio unius est exclusio alterius)
% i.e. 5(b) says it is not a condition precedent...5(f) says that it is....so in this case you have to go to
the side to protect the bargain
% P plowed the field= P broke the promise
% P might then have to pay damages for work D did in going out to inspect fields (this would be
looked at in retrial)
% NOT EVERY BREACH MEANS THE CONTRACT IS OFF (“Quick and Dirty”)...
1.JNA Realty v. Cross Bay Chelsea-- D had an option to renew on a K but did not send the notice in
reasonable time
% Issue: If there is a forfeiture, may a court of equity grant the tenant relief when the forfeiture would
result from the tenant’s own neglect or inadvertence?
% A notice exercising an option is ineffective if it is not given w/in the time specified
% “At law, of course, time is always of the essence of the K.”
% The major obstacle to obtaining equitable relief in these cases is that default on an option usually
does not result in a forfeiture
% The reason is that the option itself does not create any interest in the property, and no rights
accrue until the condition precedent has been met by giving notice within the time
specified
% When a tenant in possession under an existing lease has neglected to exercise an option to renew,
he might suffer a forfeiture if he has made valuable improvements on the (b/c now he has an
interest in the property, his improvements)
% A tenant should not be denied equitable relief from the consequences of his own neglect or
inadvertence if a forfeiture would result
% This of course generally distinguishes the lease option, to renew or purchase, from the stock option or
the option to buy guides
% Rst. § 2-229 approves the holding of this case
% To the extent that a non-occurrence of a condition would cause disproportionate forfeiture, a court
may excuse the non-occurrence of that condition unless its occurrence was a material part of the
agreed exchange
1.Jacobs & Young v. Kent-- P builds house for D but does not follow specific directions for plumbing
pipes, and so P wants difference in what he paid and what it’ll cost to fix
% Issue: Whether P can recover when he mistakenly used the pipe that was not in the K?
% Damages-- The general rule is normally that damages is measured by the cost of completion,
BUT if the cost of completion is grossly and unfairly out of proportion to the good to be
attained, the measure is the difference in value
% The court held that the failure to use the pipes that were specified in the K was not a material
breach, that is, they were trivial and neither fraudulent nor willful, and they were not
important for the purpose to be served in the K (building the house)
% It was negligence not to use the right pipes, not willful disregard or fraud
% The enforced adherence would require a rebuilding of the house, which would be disproportional to the
damage done
% The damages in this situation: In cases of substantial performance, we use the measure of the
difference in market value between the K as performed and the K as it would be if performed
perfectly
% The court must weigh the purpose to be served, the desire to be gratified, the excuse for
deviation from the letter (intentional or unintentional), and the cruelty of enforced adherence
%On Motion for Reargument: The promise to replace, like the promise to install, is to be viewed, not as a
condition, but as independent and collateral, when the defect is trial and innocent
%The law does not nullify the covenant, but restricts the remedy to damages (Motion denied)
A.Prospective Nonperformance
1) Anticipatory Repudiation
% This occurs when there has been a definite and unconditional repudiation of a K by one party
communicated to another
% A statement by a party that he will not or cannot perform in accordance w/ the agreement creates such
a breach
% If a party has reasonable grounds for insecurity, then you may request adequate assurances of
performance
% The suit may occur before the time that the K would have been performed
1.Albert Hochster v. Edgar De La Tour-- P supposed to work as courier for D and D repudiated K
% Issue: Is the D guilty of a breach of contract in refusing to provide compensation to the P? Whether
the P can sue right away or have to wait until the K date has passed?
% The man who wrongfully renounces a contract into which he was deliberately entered cannot
justly complain if he is immediately sued for a compensation in damages by the man whom he
has injured: and it seems reasonable to allow an option to the injured party, either to sue
immediately, or to wait till the time when the act was to be done, still holding it as
prospectively binding for the exercise of this option, which may be advantageous to the
innocent party, and cannot be prejudiced to the wrongdoer.
% An offer to rescind a K is not anticipatory breach and does not give a reasonable reason for adequate
assurances of performance
% Why should P wait, if D has already canceled on him
1.Harrell v. Sea Colony-- parties agreed to purchase of condo and P claimed anticipatory damages on
D
% Issue: Did P’s letter asking for a mutual rescission constitute an anticipated repudiation allowing D to
breach contract and sell to a third party? Is the agent for D liable?
% In order to constitute an anticipatory breach of K, there must be a definite and unequivocal
manifestation of intention on the part of the repudiator that he will not render the promised
performance when the time fixed for it in the contract arrives
% A mere request for a change in the terms or a request for cancellation of the K is not in itself
enough to constitute a repudiation
% Damages in an anticipatory breach
% You can await performance or you can act to cover immediately
% If you demand adequate assurance of performance you can suspend performance while you wait
for the adequate assurances. (UCC § 2-610)
% Perfect Tender Rule
% In a sale of goods, the seller must get the sale correct, and if not it is a material breach.
% This rule is tempered in the UCC for installment K
% The seller has the right to cure in some situation
% Remember: In a change in contract there must be mutual asset to changes and consideration given to
the change
%a) Scott v. Crown-- bushels of wheat K rescinded in belief that buyer couldn’t pay
% When can you act on the basis that the other party will not perform?
% Look at UCC §2-609 (know this UCC)-- reasonableness for grounds of insecurity determined
according to commercial standards
% Must be commercially reasonable, a justified demand, adequate assurance
% A demand for assurance of performance must be in writing in order to be effective...An oral
demand for assurance would suffice when there is a pattern of interaction which demonstrated
a clear understanding btw the parties that suspension of the demanding party’s performance
was the alternative, if its concerns were not adequately addressed by the other party.
% Issue: Did P have reasonable grounds for insecurity and did they properly ask for adequate assurance?
% Holding: Yes, there was reason for insecurity but assurance was asked for improperly. Driver isn’t
appropriate person to ask for assurance and request was oral
% There was no subsequent pattern of interaction between parties that would clearly demonstrate that B
understood S had asked for assurance of performance
% In actuality, S’s actions constituted an anticipatory repudiation allowing B to cancel K
% Class Notes: Seller wrote letter to ask for assurances and demanded partial payment – this is a
unilateral modification of K terms. Is this reasonable?
a.B&B Equipment v. Bowen-- Ps took on D as partner in firm and dispute arose regarding how much
D owed upon firing (b/c he did not live up to expectations)
% The essential test to determine whether a number of promises constitute one K or more than one is
simple. It can be nothing else than the answer to an inquiry whether the parties assented to all the
promises as a single whole, so that there would have been no bargain whatever, if any promise or set
of promises were struck out
XII. Damages
a.Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal-- strip-mining and pit falling; P sued D for damages & breach of K b/c
D had refused to do restoration like the K called for
% Rule - While the default rule is cost of performance, if application of that rule would result in
grossly disproportionate economic benefit as compared to the cost of performance, then use
the diminutive value rule. The basis is that the remedial work was incidental to the primary
purpose of the K and thus the economic benefit of cost of performance rule would be grossly
disproportionate
% Holding - for P - limited to the $300, but the damages should be based on “relative economic merit”
% Dissent: This is not fair to P, since D basically got his own side of the bargain, then screwed over P,
and then the court is screwing P too b/c the restoration was an essential part of K
% “Economic waste” – falls under doctrine of expectancy damages-- critics say that the party should get
want they bargained for!
% NOTE: Ps get fair market value ($300) - cost of completion would have been $29,000. Most people
think this case was decided wrong - they had great subjective value in the farm, were left with
useless land
1) Foreseeability of Harm
2) Certainty of Harm
3) Avoidability of Harm
% A party aggrieved by a breach must use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages (don’t pile on)
% In the specific case of breach of an employment K, courts will not generally require an employee that
has been discharged to take onerous or difficult measures to secure new employment, such as taking
a far inferior position or relocating
a) Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge-- bridge builders didn’t stop when warned to stop
% Issue: Should D be liable for damages sustained by P post-notification of breach?
% Holding: No, it is P’s duty to do nothing to increase the damages flowing from breach
% Damages = expenses incurred up to notice of breach + expectancy interest (profit expected)
% The Court holding was a repudiation of the breach of contract (not good to breach)
% Policy Reasons for Discouraging Breaches of Contract
% protecting the bargain
% discourage breach
% promote economic efficiency/promote productive use of assets/labor
% discourage economic waste
% personal liberty/freedom (this outweighs “promotion of economic efficiency”)
a.Shirley Maclaine Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp-- take the western instead of the
musical case
% When a contract is for personal services, plaintiff is not required to accept any position
substantially different from, or inferior to, the one contracted for in order to mitigate damages
% A job that required different sets of skills did not constitute reasonable mitigation
% An employee’s rejection of or failure to seek other employment of a different or inferior kind,
cannot be used to claim she failed to mitigate damages. Other employment must be
substantially similar to that promised in the K, “not different or inferior
% Damages that could be avoided cannot be recovered
%UCC § 2-706-- Resale of Goods The seller may, in good faith and in a commercially reasonable
manner, resell goods that the buyer wrongfully does not accept. In such cases, damages are measured by
the difference between the resale and contract prices plus incidental expenses, less expenses saved as a
consequence of the breach.
%UCC § 2-708-- Damages for Buyer's Non-acceptance or Repudiation Where a buyer wrongfully
rejects goods or unjustifiably revokes acceptance of goods or repudiates, damages are measured by the
difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the contract price together with
any incidental damages less expenses saved as a result of the buyer's breach. [UCC § 2-708]
%Damages for lost profits If the usual damages allowed for breach are inadequate to give the seller the
benefit of the bargain, the seller may recover the lost profit (including reasonable overhead), along with
incidental damages, due allowance for costs reasonably incurred, and due credit for payments or
proceeds of resale. [UCC § 2-708(2)]
% Remember: § 2-708(2) aka “lost volume seller”-- when this circumstance arises...this is the black
letter law
% The reasoning behind awarding this damages to the selleris that since the seller is essentially a dealer
with an unlimited supply of boats (since he can order as many as he needs), the resale to replace the
breaching buyer costs the dealer a sale, b/c, had the breaching buyer performed, the seller would
have made two sales instead of one. Thus the buyer’s breach depletes the seller’s sales to the extent
of one, and thus seller should be awarded the damages for the profit of one sale (e.g. If would’ve
made $500, then get $500)
% revenues - direct costs/variable costs (i.e. incidentals) = DAMAGES
%Notes: Specific Performance (can also be given by negative injunction, i.e. Lumley):
% Land- usually can get b/c land is unique (e.g. Loveless v. Diehl)
% Goods- generally no, but is rebuttable; but can get if unique & peculiar/sentimental
% Personal Services-
%Replevin: P has superior right of possession of goods (chattels) based on ownership
c) Dallas Cowboys v. Harris-- injunction against D playing for other football team
% Issue: Whether D may be enjoined from playing football somewhere else?
% All equitable relief is discretionable to the parties
% Test: Can the same skill be easily obtained from others?
% Rule: if the employee is of unique skill or has special knowledge, and this skill and knowledge
cannot be easily obtained from others, then injunctive relief is available
% Holding: Court affirms P’s injunction of D (he can’t play anywhere else)
% UCC §2-716 (where the party possesses a unique skill there may be a right to injunction) – does this
hinge on the player’s unique skill? (If there were another equally skilled player available to the
Cowboys, would this even matter?)
% Philosophical support: we value our individual liberty so highly that SP interferes with it. There is a
freedom to enter into contracts.
% Equitable support: court won’t grant remedy they can’t enforce (such as SP) because there is no police
power over the quality of performance
% Preventing a party from working for someone else would be too much like slavery, but it didn’t matter
here because D’s new league doesn’t compete with P
a.Bush v. Canfield-- K for $7/ barrel...Buyer pays but seller never delivers; price of wheat has fallen to
$5/ barrel
% Issues: When are restitution damages an acceptable remedy?
% Restitution seeks to prevent unjust enrichment
% Rule: Even where promisee would have lost from performance, promisor cannot breach and
then sue on the K
% Even when a K is cancelled, you may sue in quantam maeuit, which means that you get as much
as you deserve
% Measure for non-delivery = Value of article at time and place of delivery and interest (expectancy)
% When expectation damages would not fully compensate the non-breaching party, restitution damages
will be granted
% For a breach of K, the sum to be recovered is, not the damages sustained by the non-performance, but
the consideration which the P may have advanced
% Dissent: The dissenting judge says they are over compensating the P and the D suffers too much
b) Vines v. Orchard Hills, Inc.-- Breach by buyers for condo – want deposit back
% General Principle: the availability of the remedy of a cause of action in a K
% One who (1) w/o intent to act gratuitously, (2) confers a measurable benefit on another (3) is
entitled to restitution
% A party whose breach is not willful can bring a claim to recover moneys paid, under restitution,
that unjustly enrich the seller
% He affords another an opportunity to decline the benefit or else (3) has a reasonable excuse for failing
to do so
% If the other refuses to receive the benefit, he is not required to make restitution unless the actor
justifiably for the other a duty imposed upon him by law
a.Cotnam v. Wisdome-- Docs perform emergency surgery on D who had fallen off street car, but in the
end D dies, and now Ps want to be paid for their services
% Issue: Whether Ps can recover for professional services that they rendered to the deceased?
% Holding: Yes, since a surgical operation is conceived and performed with due skill and care, the price
to be paid therefore does not depend upon the result
% This is by way of implied K, when such medical care is provided in good faith
% Remember: In this case, there is actually no (express) K b/c there is no mutual assent
% BUT, if this happens (like in this case), the court would need to “imply a contract”
% This would essentially be a “quasi contract”
a.Martin v. Little, Brown and Co.-- student finds plagiarized material and reports it, and wants to be
compensated, but D refuses
% Issue: Is P entitled to recovery w/o a contract?
% Holding: Volunteers generally have no right to restitution
% When a party’s services have been voluntarily given there is no reasonable inference that the recipient
intended to pay; there was no inferred K
% The general rule is that you can act and be recovered in emergency situations, but beyond that no
% Notes: Volunteer= someone who gives up something freely
% The “officious intermeddler” also cannot sue for restitution (just like a volunteer)
% This is a “busy body” who interferes w/o invitation (the exception is an emergency)
% Principle based on “freedom from K” (example case is Britton v. Tuner)
% If P wanted a real K, he should have bargained with D, instead of just giving them the source
I. Defenses
%1) Misrepresentation
% Innocent misrepresentation of fact is still grounds for rescission to a K
% It must be a material misrepresentation
% Misrepresentations of facts and opinions may count, but puffery does not
% The question is what would a reasonable person rely on
% An aggrieved party may avoid a K based on misrepresentation where:
% the assertion was either material or fraudulent; and
% the person seeking to avoid the K reasonably relied to his detriment on such assertion.
Restatement § 162
% A misrepresentation is material if:
% it would be likely to induce a reasonable person to agree to the bargain, or
% the party who made the misrepresentation knew or should have known that it was likely to induce
the other party to manifest assent to the bargain, whether or not a reasonable person would have
been induced.
% A misrepresentation is fraudulent if it was made with:
% the intention of inducing the other party to rely on it, and
% knowledge of its falsity or lack of adequate foundation for the representation. (scienter)
b) Byers v. Federal Land Co.-- purchaser of land paid more than land was worth
% In this case: Whether a K may be rescinded based on (alleged misrep. of material fact)...
% Issue #1-- ...whether the seller is the owner?
% Holding #1-- No, it is immaterial that seller was not the owner of the land
% Issue #2-- ...whether land was really worth $35 per acre?
% Holding #2-- In this case No, b/c what was said by these brokers was evidently intended as but an
opinion, and the P cannot be heard to say that he relied upon such an opinion
% VALUE IS USUALLY SUBJECTIVE, I.E. A MATTER OF OPINION, BUT NOT ALWAYS
% Issue #3-- ...whether the seller has possession of the land?
% Holding #3-- Yes, the misrepresentation as to the delivery of possession was material, b/c of the value
of such possession during the long period that the K might continue, and is s
% Remember: Must pertain to a material fact
c) Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc.-- bad dancer induced to purchase more dance lessons
% Issue: 1) Under what circumstances may a statement of opinion be relied upon as fact?
% Rule: Generally for a misrepresentation to be actionable it must be one of fact rather than of
opinion, BUT a statement of a party having superior knowledge may be regarded as a
statement of fact although it would be considered as opinion if parties were dealing on equal
terms
% Notes: Was reliance on the opinion objectively reasonable? Did the speaker expect his statement of
opinion to be relied on? Should the buyer have relied on the seller’s opinion, or should he have
formed his own opinion?
% Diminished Capacity-- e.g. is this person vulnerable? (not too common)
% Undue Influence doctrine-- (more common, in cases like wills and contract)
% Looks at the relative power of the parties...i.e. whether one party is unusually susceptible or
vulnerable
% Looks at suspicious patterns...i.e. unusual/inappropriate time (“you got to do it now”; “no time to
seek legal advice”)
% Look at multiple persuaders
2. Duress
% Generally by threat
% Physically compelled assent
% Economic duress
% Actor must show that he has no reasonable alternative
% Examples of duress include threats to:
% commit a criminal or tortuous act against the party, his family or his property
% extort money
% commence a civil action under circumstances which could be deemed abuse of process
% refuse to do business with the party
% blackmail the party
% refuse to perform a K in order to extract an economically unjustified modification
% terminate an employment K unless the party or someone close to him consents to an
agreement not connected with the employment K
%a) Hackley v. Headley-- log delivery, P had to settle for less due to economic hardship
% Issue: Does this constitute economic duress, and if it does, is the K then unenforceable?
% Holding: No, the poor financial situation of a party is not sufficient to rescind a K modification on
grounds of duress
% Duress exists when one by the unlawful act of another is induced to make a K or perform some
act under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of free will
% Duress can be of the person...such as by imprisonment, threats, or by force which apparently
cannot be resisted
% Duress can be of goods...which may exist when one is compelled to submit to an illegal exaction
in order to obtain them from one who has them in possession but refuses to surrender them
unless he exaction is submitted to
% Where one party threatens nothing which he has not a legal right to perform, there is no duress
% Policy: The Court says that it does not want to discourage people from making K with people who are
or seem to be in financial distress
% It’s P’s own fault that he has economic problems that put him in this position
% This would have not caused duress if the P had not been in financial strain
% Courts want parties to settle their disputes on their own; uncomfortable w/deciding what the price
should be
a.Austin v. Loral: Austin sues b/c Loral doesn’t pay. Loral says they were under duress to agree to
change the payment terms in order to get the materials needed for the Navy job
% Duress occurs when consent is induced by improper threats and leaves the victim with no reasonable
alternatives
% A contract is voidable on the ground of duress when a threat deprives a party of free will
% A “classic case”-- D was time sensitive
% The Court found that the D could not have obtained the parts from any other source, and that the
normal remedy of damages for breach in this case would be insufficient b/c of the clause for
liquidated damages for late delivery
% D looked around for reliable alternatives but couldn’t find any that would meet the timeline of the
contract that D had with the Gov’t
3) Unconscionability
% Unconscionable K are those that do not include a meaningful choice by one party w/ terms which are
unreasonably favorable to the other
% The court will consider the bargaining power of the parties, business practices, ability to buy,
educational background, bargaining power
% The majority rule is that you need to have both to rule unconscionability
% Procedural unconscionability, which is manifested by unfair surprise, relates to the aggrieved
party's understanding of the contract terms due to factors such as:
% Deals with the contracting process
% e.g. How do you go about it? Did you trick them? Take advantage of them?
% inconspicuous print in the writing
% unintelligible legal language or highly technical language
% lack of opportunity to read the contract or seek clarification of terms
% illiteracy
% imbalanced bargaining positions (such as in adhesion contracts) - gross inequality of power
% terms unreasonably favoring the stronger party
% no meaningful choice for the weaker party - no real alternative
% one-sided at the time the contract was made
% Substantive unconscionability relates to contract terms that are, in whole or in part, deemed to
be oppressive, such as:
% provisions that deprive one party of the benefit of the agreement or an adequate remedy for the
other party's breach
% provisions that bear no reasonable relation to the risk involved
% provisions that are substantially disadvantageous to one party without producing a commensurate
benefit to the other party
% a great disparity between the cost and the selling price of the item that is the subject of the K in
absence of objective justification for such disparity
a.Wille v. Southwestern Bell Co.-- P sued for omitted listings saying that he had to purchase other
listings to compensate. P sued for lost profits from omissions in a telephone directory and breach
of K
% Issue: Was the K unconscionable?
% Holding: In this case No, b/c the court looked at the terms of the K, the manner of its execution
and the knowledge and experience of P, and held that the K was neither inequitable nor
unconscionable so as to deny enforcement
% UCC does not require that there be complete equality of bargaining power or that the agreement be
equally beneficial to both parties...
% There must be additional factors such as deceptive bargaining power to render the contract between the
parties unconscionable
% The doctrine of unconscionability is directed against one-sided, oppressive and unfairly surprising Ks,
and not against the consequences per se of uneven bargaining power or even old-fashioned bad
bargain
% Remember: Unconscionability cases almost always never succeed
i.In re Realnetworks--
% No, an arbitration clause is not unconscionable merely because the agreement does not draw
attention to it
% No, the mere fact that an arbitration forum selection clause specifies a forum that is
geographically distant from another party does not render that clause substantively
unconscionable
%d) Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.-- Ps wanted to sue for unfair cancellation fees, but D service
agreement has arbitration clause that prohibit class action suits
% To be unenforceable, a contract must be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable,
but the elements need not be present in the same degree
% The analysis employes a sliding scale: the more one there is of one element, the less that is
required of the other element, to prove that the term is unenforceable
% Issue: Whether the class action waiver, element of surprise, and/or uneven bargaining power between
the two parties render the arbitration provision unconscionable and thus unenforceable?
a) Tyra v. Cheney,-- subcontr. mistakenly left off amount stated in oral bid in written bid
% Issue: Can P collect damages for a mistake in estimate made to D that D knew about when accepting
bid?
% Holding: Yes, D knew of mistake.
% Rule(s): Since D knew mistake was made, there was no mutual assent (error in K formation)
% There was no enforceable K to begin with, so terms of Ks are refused to be imposed by ct.
% This is an implied agreement – no K here
% Since the work did benefit the other party, to prevent unjust enrichment, Court awards restitution
% P can recover reasonable value off the K (restitution action)
% When only one party has made a mistake – “tough on them” (you gotta be careful)
% But, since D knew about mistake, he didn’t really rely on the bid, therefore, no K
% Good Guy, Bad Guy Rule:
% If one party knows what the other does not, then we have to use the subjective method (as opposed
to the objective method)...b/c that party knew a [mistake was made]
% Court does not want to give incentive for mistake, rescission, etc.
b) Drennan v. Star Paving-- misquoted sub-K estimate, general-k wins bid on estimate
% Issue: Can D rescind since it made a mistake?
% Holding: NO, b/c P did not know about mistake and relied on it, K is enforceable
% Rule: Burden of loss on party that made the mistake in the case when both parties are innocent
unless otherwise stipulated
% P entitled to $3,000 since P relied on mistake
% Look at § 153 and § 154 to find if this K is voidable
c) Laidlaw v. Organ-- Treaty of Yent, Tobacco investment, S attempts to take tobacco back
% Issue: Can Seller claim fraud when Buyer knew price of tobacco would rise due to Treaty of Yent
which was not yet known to other persons? Is suppression of info known by buyer considered fraud?
% Rule: A buyer is not required to share knowledge of any external factors that might affect the value of
the goods in an exchange with the seller of those goods as long as there is no imposition of one party
on the other
% aka “That would be tantamount to fraud/in bad faith”
% Law and ethics are separate -- the maxim caveat emptor (“buyer beware”) would not be part of the law
if they were bound together
% See § 160- When Action is equal to an Assertion and § 161-- When Non-Disclosure is same
a.Paradine v. Jane: P rented land from D. The Prince invaded the land and P was kicked off and
stopped paying. D sued P for lost rent.
% No longer good law
% P had an obligation to pay-- When a party by his own K creates duty or charge upon himself he is
bound to make it good, if he may, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, b/c he might
have provided against it by his K
a.Transatlantic Financing Corp. v. United States-- P contracted with D to bring wheat from US to Iran
% Issue: Whether Trans is entitled to relief based on the extra distance it had to travel to fulfill its
commitment to the K?
% Holding: No, b/c performance for the contract was rendered not legally impossible
% Remember: 3 Factors to Consider (the same to UCC § 2-615):
% Unless the court finds these 3 requirements satisfied, the plea of impossibility must fail:
% 1) Unforseeability
% 2) Risk (the most important one)
% It’s not really “unforeseeability” more so than it is “unaccounted for”
% 3) Impracticability
% If the K is impracticable, then you cannot collect on it-- it is avoidable
% When performance of a K is deemed impossible, it is a nullity
b) Krell v. Henry-- D leased a flat on Pall Mall to see the coronation of the King
% Issue: Is K void b/c the purpose of the K, to get a good view of coronation, was no longer present?
% Holding: Yes, K was based on the basic assumption that D rented to view the coronation
% The value of the room to the promisee has greatly diminished
% Lower court: Implied condition that the coronation would take place, like Taylor v. Caldwell.
% Rule: This is not a mistake case. Only a mistake case if window was facing the wrong way
% Not a impossible/impracticability case b/c the K can still be performed, it’s not commercially
impossible or impracticable
% The change in event must be the purpose of the K in order to claim frustration of purpose
% Everything in K was structured around the coronation
% Three part test (based on UCC § 1-103):
% 1) What was foundation of the K? Event has to be foundation of K
% 2) Was the performance of the contract prevented? Take into account surrounding circumstances
% 3) Was the event which prevented the performance of the K of such a character that it cannot
reasonably be said to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the date of the contract?
Unforeseeable? If foreseeable, parties could have taken steps to allocate risk-- This becomes a
very important question