Contracts I Short Outline - Professor Rose 1999
- Consideration
- Promise was part of a bargain
- To be consideration, a return promise or performance must be
bargained for and must be induced by the promise.
R2d71, Hamer v. Sidway
- The pretense of a bargain won't constitute consideration, nor will
an illusory promise, but a satisfaction clause is not illusory.
R2d77, Strong v. Sheffield,
Mattei v. Hopper.
- A performance can be an action, or a forbearance. A promise can be
no more than a limitation of future freedom such as "If I buy X, I'll
lease it to you."
- Forbearance to sue is only consideration when there is a
reasonable basis in fact and law and forbearing party has a
good faith belief in the validity of the claim, no matter how small the
perceived chance of success. R2d74,
Fiege v. Boehm.
- A requirements contract entered in good faith is enforceable, even
though exact quantities aren't specified.
UCC 2-306(1), Eastern v. Gulf.
- The court may imply a promise based on the circumstances in order to
give effect to the intent of the parties. Best efforts in exclusive
dealings are implied by UCC 2-306(2).
Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon.
- Promise was not part of a bargain - no "real" consideration
- Was the promise given in recognition of a material benefit
previously conferred on the promisor by the promisee, thus making him
morally bound? If so, the promise may be enforceable to
prevent injustice, such as unjust enrichment of promisor.
R2d86, Webb v. McGowin.
- Under quasi-contract, a doc can get restitution for emergency aid
given even without a promise. Cotnam v. Wisdom.
- A non-compete agreement in at-will employment may be enforced if
followed by sufficient employment, especially when D acts in bad faith.
Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram
- A promise of an at-will job may be enforceable under
R2d90. Grouse.
- A (1)promise which the promisor should (2)reasonably expect to
induce reliance by the promisee and which (3)does induce reliance is
binding if (4)injustice can be avoided only by enforcement. Remedy may
be limited as justice requires.
R2d90, Ricketts v. Scothorn,
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer.
- Remedy is often based on ease of computation. Choices are:
expectation (cost of lost opportunity), reliance (return to status
quo), restitution (amount of unjust enrichment), specific
performance (force perf of contract rare)
- Offer and Acceptance, Mutual Assent
- Primary objective is to give effect to the expressed intent of the
parties as reasonably interpreted under the circumstances. The unexpressed
state of mind is immaterial. Laserage.
- An Offer must have (1)intent to be bound, (2)definiteness of
terms, (3)identified offerees.
- Ads are generally not offers, but are offers to negotiate.
Craft v. Elder & Johnston, Lefkowitz.
- When prices are requested on an order, a vendor has offered to fill
the order when he responds with a price. Fairmount Glass.
- Under Kastorff, rescission may be had for mistake if the mistake is
- Material to the contract and
- if the other party can be placed in Statu Quo
- party seeking relief must give prompt Notice of his election to rescind
- if enforcement of the contract as made would be Unconscionable, and
- was not the result of neglect of a Legal Duty,
- An option is created by beginning performance or when
consideration is given for a promise to keep offer open. Line between
preparation and performance can be manipulated by court to get "right"
result. R2d45, Ever-Tite Roofing, Ragosta v. Wilder
- A bid by a subcontractor is construed as an option if the general
contractor relies on it. Drennan v. Star Paving.
- Acceptance - requires intent (closing deal, no further comms) and
communicated in proper manner (prom or perf if unspecified)
- Acceptance of an offer must be manifested in such a way as to be
communicated to the offeror. White v. Corlies & Tift.
- Offeror is master of the offer, and may specify mode of acceptance,
requiring only that mode, or even dispensing with communication
requirement.
- When a method of acceptance is suggested, others aren't ruled out
unless the offer explicitly says only that way.
- Silence ordinarily not acceptance. R2d69.
- Power of acceptance can be terminated by
- death - or incapacity, doesn't have to be communicated
- revocation - either express or by actions inconsistent with offer
- rejection - either express or by counter-offer
- lapse - at specified time, or reasonable time, end of
conversation if verbal bargaining.
- Mailbox rule - acceptance is effective when put out of the offeree's
control if it is timely and in proper manner. Acc of option is eff on
receipt. Revocation effective upon receipt.
- Common law Mirror Image Rule says no contract if the terms of the
acceptance vary from the offer. This is a counter-offer. If seller
accepts buyers offer by shipment, buyer's "last shot" terms win.
- UCC bifurcates formation and terms, making formation much easier to
find. Any reasonable method will work unless another is unambiguously
indicated.
- UCC 2-207 repeals mirror-image and last-shot rules - you don't get
stuck with the terms just because you took the goods.
- Between merchancts additional terms are presumed effective unless
they materially alter the contract (surprise or hardship), offer has an
express limitation, or offeree objects.
- firm offer by a merchant in signed writing may be irrevocable 2-205
- The knockout doctrine cancels conflicting terms in confirmation
forms such as those exchanged after a telephone agreement. (narrow view)
- Precontractual Liability
- Orthodox contract doctrine says that neither party is bound until the
offer has been accepted.
- Modern courts may protect reasonable reliance by using discretion of
when acceptance occurred. R2d90.
- A promise lacking sufficient detail to be an offer can be binding under
promissory estoppel. Hoffman v. Red Owl.
- A letter of intent stating that the lessor will take the unit off the
market is enforceable if the lessor uses it to obtain financing.
Channel Home Centers v. Grossman.
- Policing the Bargain
- Attempt to protect freedom to contract, and freedom from contract.
- Capacity
- Minors - a minor may disaffirm a contract up until shortly after
reaching majority, he must return anything still possessed that was
received under the contract.
- Mental capacity - a person incurs voidable contractual duties if
they are (1)incapable of reasoning or understanding the nature and
effect of the transaction, or (2)is unable to act in a reasonable manner
toward the transaction and the other party knows of the mental
deficiency. R2d15, Ortelere.
- The other party may recover under restitution theory when the
contract is for necessary subsistence goods.
- Fairness
- Contracts containing oppressive terms are not reasonable, and won't
be enforced. McKinnon v. Benedict.
- In a land contract, the court will grant specific performance as a
matter of course if the contract is otherwise unobjectionable.
Tuckwiller.
- Courts don't inquire into the adequacy of consideration.
Black Industries v. Bush.
- Overreaching
- Pre-Existing-Duty Rule - Performance of a legal duty owed to a
promisor is not consideration. Alaska Packers.
- A modification made to meet unforeseen changes in circumstances
operates as partial rescission, and is enforceable.
Watkins & Sons v. Carrig.
- Good faith is required in contract modifications. Changes made
under duress are voidable when (1)threat to withhold needful goods,
(2) can't obtain the goods elsewhere, (3) ordinary remedy for breach
would be inadequate. Austin v. Loral.
- For a sale of goods under the UCC, a modification requires only good
faith, no consideration required.
- A contract is voidable on the ground of duress when it is
established that the party making the claim was forced to agree to it by
means of a wrongful threat precluding the exercise of free will.
- A Full Payment Check will discharge a debt when the receiving party has
notice of the terms upon which he accepts it. Kibler v. Garrett.
- look for notice, disputed amount, imputed assent by cashing check,
PED rule, used to help weak party
- UCC Offer/Acceptance checklist
- Sale of goods, UCC governs.
- Are they merchants?
- If any terms are missing, consider custom/gap fillers
- Argue both sides of is/isn't offer or acceptance.
- If K Form under 207(1), different negot. terms kills def. exp Acc
- Balance offeror mastery with 2-207(2)
- What is an appropriate remedy?