final contracts outline cimino
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
1/43
Contracts OutlineIntroduction
Two key elements of a K
A promise or promises and
Enforcement
A contract is an agreement the law will enforce.
Hill v. Gateway Judge Easterbrook pro-business opinion (U of hicago!
Ks are formed when e"pectations of both sides are met
#aw looks to protect those e"pectations
#aw and Economics sol$ing the problem through the most cost
e%ecti$e method with wealth ma"imi&ation in mind
'usinesses can operate more eciently when the terms of the K may
be included with the product
)$erlooks the application of U * +-+,- additional terms to a K arent
applicable unless the consumer e"plicitly agrees in merchant-consumer transactions
ompare with Klocek
I. Has a deal been made?Tested through an Objective StandardA. Mutual Assent
Lucy v. Zehmer
Facts:/arties signed contract o$er drinking for #ucy to buy0ehmers farm for 1,K2 a reasonable price. 0ehmer laterreneged.
Rule: #ucy actually belie$ed 0ehmer was serious2 A34 was
justifedin belie$ing so. 3o e$idence that 0ehmer was toodrunk to make contract.
)b5ecti$e theory of Ks6 modern theory
7easonable meanings of actions of parties
)utward e"pression manifests intention o$er secret2une"pressed intention
#iteral meeting of the minds not re8uired
7educe business risk and enhance predictability
Undisclosed intentions are immaterial
3ot what the o%eror meant but the reasonable impression
created/olicy9 This decision pa$es the way for a more predictable businessen$ironment. 'usinesses risk less when creating a K as the other partycannot bring in their inward intents.Leonard v. Pepsico
Facts:/epsi ad$ertised 5unk for points2 including :arrier Jet for
; points as a 5oke. Rule:An ad$ertisement doesnt represent a $alid o%er unless
speci
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
2/43
/reliminary negotiations
=. Ad$ertising+. >n$itation of bids or other o%ers
Gleason v. Freeman
Facts:?ellers use E-bay auction to
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
3/43
An o%er is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a
bargain2 that is made in a way that 5usti desire to purchase2 thisbank ok ?kolnick says Ceah but hurry >m going to sell it
soon. :e sells it not to third party. There is no $alid o%er if party accepting knows that some
further e"pression of assent is needed
Ad$ertisements are requests for oersunless speci
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
4/43
Facts:/epsi ad$ertised 5unk for points2 including :arrier Jet for; points as a 5oke.
Law:Ad$ertisement is generally not o%er2 but solicitation ofone. )b5ecti$e person must construe an ad as an o%er2 which e"cludesacts in 5est. 3o real o%er made by /epsi.Le&kowit' v. Great (inneapolis Surplus
Facts9 4 published in newspaper C?at Nam2 B new coats2 worthO=,,2 mplied in Lact K)%eror can bind themsel$es to terms by their
conduct e$en if they dont necessarily write it down and say Chere2 signhere
C. *estro,in t3e O$er)%ers create the power of acceptance in the o%eree. Dhen an o%er ismade in face to face con$ersation2 the default rule is that it e"pireswhen the parties part company.Rest 89 +o'er o! Acce&tance
An o%er gi$es the o%eree a continuing power of acceptance
)%eree cannot accept until the o%er is complete
Rest 8 Met3ods o! 5erminatin t3e +o'er o! Acce&tance
Termination may occur by
=. 7e5ection or counter o%er by the o%eree+. #apse of timeB. 7e$ocation by the o%erorI. 4eath of the o%eror or o%eree
. Indirect Revocation)ickinson v. )odds ;Indirect Revocation
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
5/43
Rule:'efore acceptance2 parties free to change F if o%erre$oked2 then there is no meeting of minds at time ofsupposed acceptance. 4ickinson knew o%er wasre$oked because 4odds sold to Allen. 3o contract. ?eeRestmt. )8
2. 7a&se
(innesota Linseed *il %o. v. %ollier +hite Lead %o. Acceptance is a%ected once dispatched unless the K is
an option
7e$ocation when recei$ed
)%ers are $alid only for a reasonable amount of time (N,
days!
7easonable time depends upon the circumstances and
character of the sub5ect matter of the K
>tems that Quctuate greatly in price o$er short periods of
time re8uire immediate acceptance
)%ers for unstated periods of time lapse after a
reasonable time
A reasonable time contemplates how rational parties
would ha$e understood each other8. *eat3 or Inca&acit, o! O$eror
Rest. )o A power of acceptance is terminated at the time
speci
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
6/43
more years (until N!2 but no consideration paid by arlton. >nS2 arlton tries to in$oke option ecilia says no. )%er wasopen bc no consideration2 but issue is whether ecilia re$okedduring that time
onsideration gi$en to hold o%er open creates a binding option
to contract
)ption sells the power to re$oke 4eath doesnt terminate an option
An option without consideration is simply an o%er (doesnt need
to be held open as promised wHo consideration!
)%ers accepted within the time limit of an option without
consideration will create a K unless the o%er is withdrawn priorto acceptance
The time limit will generally represent a reasonable amount oftime
oard o& ,(- v. ur"ess
Facts:'urgess signed doc granting E;U @, day option to buy
her home. 4oc acknowledged receipt by 'urgess of CO= andother $aluable consideration. E;U admits they ne$er paid the
consideration. E;U sends 'urgess notice of intent to e"erciseoption. 'urgess re5ects E;Us price.
Trial9 'urgess acknowledging receipt of consideration is good
enough F it doesnt matter if she didnt actually get it(formalities matter!
Appeals9 Dritten acknowledgment of receipt of consideration
creates rebuttal presumption that consideration has passed Fnothing bars the presentation of e$idence to contradict suchacknowledgment Cshe hadnt gotten anything she bargained foryet
'ut2 e$en if there was no consideration2 the o%er was still open
unless she e%ecti$ely re$oked before acceptance
'urgess said after signing2 called E;Us agent and said optiono%
>f she did this2 she e%ecti$ely re$oked before E;Us acceptanceand no K was created F E;U said this didnt happen
ase remanded to
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
7/43
o An o%er that is reasonably e"pected to cause action or
forebearance on the part of the other party and does so2creates a binding option
CC 2@2B9 ;"IRM O""0RS=:>f a merchant makes an o%er2 in
writing2 signed2 and which contains an assurance that it will beheld open2 then it will be regarded as irre$ocable in spite of the
absence of consideration for the time stated or a reasonabletime2 but no longer than B months.
reates e"ception to 'eall rule
0. Modes and Met3ods o! Acce&tanceAcceptance of an o%er is a manifestation of assent to the terms madeby the o%eror in a manner in$ited or re8uired by the o%er. Anacceptance is a statement or act that indicates the o%ereesimmediate intent to enter into the deal proposed by the o%er. As longas the acceptance takes place while the o%er is outstanding2 a K isformed as soon as the acceptance occurs. An o%er can only beaccepted by the person whom it in$ites to furnish the consideration.5ermination o! an o$er:
7e5ection
ountero%er 7e$ocation
#apse
Rest 9) Acce&tance b, +er!ormance -ecessit, o! -otifcation
Dhen an o%er in$ites acceptance by performance2 no
notif the o%eree knows the o%eror would ha$e diculty learning of
his performance2 the o%erors duty is discharged unless=. The o%eree e"ercises reasonable diligence to notify the
o%eror+. The o%eror learns of acceptance within a reasonable time2 orB. 3oti
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
8/43
after bank appro$ed 4s credit2 / went to start reroo?T>3GU>?:E4 L7); #A?A##E9
o ?>;>#A7>T>E?9 both E$ertite and #a?alle drafted
the documents to protect themsel$es2 both hadan issue with the signature
o 4>LLE7E3E?9 Dorked in E$ertites bene
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
9/43
2dams v. Lindsell +, )3)#40 )* 0H3S %2S,
Mailbo1 rule
Acceptance is e%ecti$e upon dispatch e$en if the letter
is lost
All other communications are e%ecti$e upon receipt2
meaning once the writing comes into the persons
possession Along with death terminating an o%er2 this represents
the most glaring holdo$ers from sub5ecti$e theory
7esistant to change due to its uni$ersal nature
4oesnt apply to option Ks under 7est2 but does under
common law
>f you dont want to be sub5ect to rule2 use a di%erent
medium or speci## 4>?T>3GU>?:E4 L7); /E/?>)
o :ere2 money reward e"isted. :arrier 5et wasnt. >f
it was2 #eonard wouldnt ha$e been unreasonable(archiondo v. Scheck
9
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
10/43
Facts:4 o%ered to sell real estate to buyer (o%eree! and
agreed to pay commission to broker (/!. )%er had @-daylimit for acceptance. 4 re$oked the o%er2 / recei$edre$ocation on the @thday. #ater that day2 broker goto%erees acceptance.
'eginning of performance upon a unilateral K creates a
binding option Lull performance within terms of the o%er are re8uired
)%eror must let performance be done
/erformance must be completed in a reasonable time
Rest. )9 ;Above=
). Im&er!ect Acce&tances C7 MIRROR IMAE0 R709 Any di$ergence in the f re5ection of o%er creates a
counter o%er2 o%eree becomes o%eror F meaning o%eree isnow Cmaster of the o%er F this is the o%erees last shot to getterms in
CC 2@2B) ;reasonableness=:>f parties of a K ha$e not
agreed to a term2 a term which is reasonable in thecircumstances is supplied by the court
CC 2@2B ;reasonableness=:7easonable meaning of term
is usually term that operates against the party that supplies it)orton v. %ollins 5 2ikman %orp.
Facts:(arpet manHo%eror! wants damages from
4(o%eree! selling carpets of cheaper 8uality than what /paid for. 4 said / was bound to arbitration agreement onback of 4s sales acknowledgment form (said Csub5ectto!. / said their oral agreements were di%erent2 butthey took deli$ery of paid for carpets without ob5ectingto the terms.
o 4istrict court9 Under +-+, (B! F U does not
impose an arbitration term on the parties wheretheir K is silent on the matter. onQict betweenarbitration and no arbitration clause would resultin no arbitration clause becoming e%ecti$e. Arbagreement was not among the Cagreed uponthings. Assumed oral agreement o$er the phone arb terms were di%erent
o Appeals court9 4s arbitration agreement was
3)T within +-+,(=! pro$iso (Csub5ect tolanguage not enough!9 acceptance was not madee"pressly conditional on assent to additionalterms (formation under = (K recogni&ed!2 go toM+2 additional terms are added to K unless theymaterially alter the K2 case was remanded to
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
11/43
T:)UG:T UE?T>)39 Dhat if they were within pro$iso
(=! ?ince / didnt assent to it2 which would be re8uired24s arb terms would be out. 'ut2 you would go to (B! andterms of the K would be what the parties agreed on (thisis 3)T 4s arb terms!
CC 2@2B/(?EE 'E#)D!once material terms areagreed upon2 a K e"ists and any trade of additionalterms does not $oid K
#attle o! !orms
Additional terms that dont materially alter the terms of
the K are treated as proposals in addition to the K andbecome e%ecti$e after =, days unless ob5ected to byone of the parties. ('etween merchants!
Klocek v. Gateway
Facts:/ brings suit against 4 alleging 4 induced him to
purchase computer special support packing with falsepromises of tech support. / claims breach of K warranty. 4 says / must arbitrate under 4s standard
terms included in the bo" power cableHinstructions camein. Ga$e 1 days for / to return the computer F 7uled for /
U * +-+, does apply
Additional terms dont apply under * +-+, unless
e"plicitly agreed to (Dhen consumer is in$ol$ed!
'uyer is o%eror2 Gateway accepted as o%eree and
proposed additional terms
omparisons between this case2 Dorton2 and Hill
encompass ma5or issues of the course
Terms that Accompany Product
ProCD v. Zeidenberg
Facts:ProCD has license inside box. Zeidenberg bough
!roduc and "iolaed license.
Law:#oice on ouside$ license on inside$ righ o reurn
%or re%und is an acce!able &a' o% doing business. (ince
onl' one %or)$ * 2+207no rele"an$ alhough conrac sillcanno be unconscionable,&hich i isn- in his case.
Hill v. Gateway, Klocek v. Gateway
Facts:Plaini%% bough /ae&a' &ih conrac inside he
box$ had !roble)$ and did no &an o sub)i o arbiraion.
Hill:,udge &as an asshole * 2+207does # a!!l'
because here &as onl' one %or) and re%und allo&ed.
Klocek:* 2+207D( a!!l' because er)s in box areaddiional er)s o &hich !urchaser did # consen. #o
e"idence loce gi"en noice.
UCC 2-207 Explained
,1(ar &ih an acce!ance or &rien con%ir)aion ha"ing "ar'ing er)s.s i ex!ressl' )ade condiional on assen o he "ar'ing er)s
YEIf it is an acceptancei o!eraes as a counero%%er$ &hich
)a' in general be acce!ed "ia !arial or co)!lee
11
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
12/43
!er%or)ance. !o to ".
If it is a written confirmation$ i o!eraes as an o%%er o )odi%'
a !re+exising conrac. !o to 2.
#$ !o to 2.
,2ddiional er)s ser"e as !ro!osals %or an addiion o he conrac and
be&een )erchans beco)e !ar o% he conrac unless he o%%er ex!ressl' li)is acce!ance o is er)s:
he' )aeriall' aler he conrac: or
noi%icaion o% ob;ecion has alread' been gi"en or is gi"en
&ihin a reasonable i)e a%er recei! o% noice o% he
addiional er)s.,3% he &riings o% he !aries do no esablish a conrac$ he conduct of
the parties may establish a contractconsising o% he er)s on &hich heir
&riings agree and an' su!!le)enar' er)s !ro"ided b' oher !ro"isionso% he c.
". *e!eatin Areements #ased on Misunderstandin o! t3e 5ermsThere is no mutual assent if the parties ha$e assented to di%erent
things.Ra6es v. +ichelhaus 78 Ships named Peerless/ %lass Hypo9
Any mistaken term can $oid the agreement
Pery sub5ecti$e $iew
lassic case of mutual mistake
E. ConsiderationA #AREAI-0* "OR 0FCHA-E0/urpose of consideration is to distinguish between gratuitous and non-gratuitous promises
a. M5A7 I-*C0M0-5:bilateral promise2 with the promisor trying torenege
3);>3A# )3?>4E7AT>)3 C/E//E7)739 An e"change where
mutual inducement is lacking and its really a gift (other than$alue reasons! F the consideration was a sham F the courtsuspects dressing up a gift to look like a 'LE
3ominal consideration sits in between bargain gift
A way to determine if there was mutual inducement is if there is
a real bene
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
13/43
duty as a police ocer. 's performance is not consideration. >f' was on $acation in another state2 howe$er2 his performancewould be $alid consideration.
. C3anin our Mind About Areein to Eive ;+romissor,Ei!t=
Kirksey v. Kirksey;Ei!t vs. #"0=
Facts:Didowed womens brother-in-law tells her to sellher land and that he has a place for her to raise herfamily. :e says he has more land than he needs andwants to see herHher kids do well. ?he mo$es2 and aftertwo years2 he reneges on his promise2 re8uired her tolea$e.
;ere gratuitous promises arent enforceable
Gift promises may ha$e conditions that dont represent
consideration
onte"t and surrounding circumstances
Dhat about reliance
ompare to Hamer
Gift $ 'LE9 Use facts to determine whether mindset of
promisor is a Csel
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
14/43
/romisee su%ered legal detriment (Tramp wasnt legally
obligated to walk around the block! 4etriment induced the promise LA>#? :E7E F walking
around the block did not induce promise of fur coat2 itwas the man being altruistic2 he did it to be a goodperson F 3) 'LE onsideration
/romise induces detriment /romise of fur coat induceswalk around the block
Reed v. -niversity o& #orth )akota 5 #)2)
Facts: 7eed is on scholarship at U342 gets disabled after
running on the same course as a race sponsored by34A4. / sues for 34A4 for negligence. 34A4 says raceregistration forms signed by 7eed (wai$er! was a Kreleasing 34A4 from liability.
7elease forms are supported by consideration as one
party gi$es up the right to sue and the other allowsparticipation
The forbearance of a legal right is a legal detriment
which constitutes good consideration
Rest. /9- a promise for a promise is $alidconsideration if the promised performance would beconsideration6 The promise is enforced by fact of bargain
#"0 CO-SI*0RA5IO- 8 +RO-E 50S5:
o /romisee must su%er legal detriment (34A4 is
not legally obligated to let 7eed run the race!o The detriment must induce the promise (34A4
allowing 7eed to run induces 7eeds promise notto sue F ;utual >nducement!
o The promise must induce the detriment (7eeds
promise not to sue induces 34A4 allowing 7eedto run the race F ;utual >nducement!
8. C3anin our Mind About Areein to C3ane t3e *eal
2laska Packers 2ssociation v. )omenico 3n Sylla$us)idn4t Read
A party cannot demand more compensation for
something that they are already obligated to do bytaking ad$antage of the necessities of the ad$ersary
A party shall not pro
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
15/43
Rest. >D- a promise modifying a duty under a K not
fully performed on either side is binding ifo The modin5ustice absent enforcement
EU>TA'#E E?T)//E#9 conduct by one party2 which leads toanother party2 in reliance thereon2 to adopt a course of actionresulting in detriment or damage if the KETT?!
>n$ol$es factual misrepresentations that induce relianceRicketts v. Scothorn ;+0 as a S3ield=
Facts:Grandfather gi$es note saying hes going to gi$e
granddaughter enough O so she wont ha$e to work. Giftwas not conditioned on her 8uitting her 5ob. 3ote gi$enwHo consideration2 it was 5ust a promise to make a gift inthe future. Grandfather died and estate didnt want topay the granddaughter. GLathers conduct implied hewants her to 8uit
Dhen a donee prior to re$ocation acts upon a promise to
his detriment2 the donor is estopped from pleading wantof consideration
Argument used in the past by charities
4id promise induce reliance and do we now feel that we
should enforce the promise
Linding of reliance rather than consideration
B critical aspects of early cases
=. Lamilial relationship+. /romise sincerely o%eredB. 7eliance on promise to detriment
)ld rule re8uired full enforcement of the promise
ompare to Hamer
'eginning of doctrine- promise the most important factor
(idwest ,ner"y 3nc. v. *rion Food Systems 3nc.;+0 asS'ord=
Facts: / was a builder contracting to franchise a storewith 4. 4 made / change the design of the building toaccommodate their store. After / was told to Cgo aheadby 42 / changed their building and didnt get thefranchise.
/HE9 4 made a promise (go ahead!2 it was foreseeable /
would rely on it (to get the franchise!2 / relied in fact(modi
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
16/43
enforcement (court said more info needed here Fperhaps lost opportunity costs!.
;ost important aspect is 5usti
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
17/43
1. ?ub is bound only to pre$ent in5ustice
E$idence of bid shopping by the general will re$oke any
later reliance argument and free the sub from his bid
Justice :and $iew9 7enegotiation is part of the process
and it is not the 5ob of the courts to get in$ol$ed./romissory Estoppel shouldnt be used in a commercial
setting. Justice Traynor $iew9 Apply 7est. * N,as consideration
for an implied promise to keep the bid open for areasonable amount of time
/rotects 7eliance >nterests
U Art. +- written o%er re8uires no consideration". Statute o! "rauds @ *e!enses
Rest B Classes o! s CoveredThese Ks wont be enforced without a written memorandum orapplicable e"ception9
=. A K of an e"ecutor or administrator to answer for the duty of adecedent
+. A K to answer for the duty of another
B. A K made upon consideration of marriageI. A K for the sale of an interest in land1. A K that is not to be performed within = year from its making
Ks for o$er O1,, were traditionally go$erned by the ? of L but are nowregulated by the ? of L pro$isions of the U * +-+,=.
The primary purpose of the ? of L is e$identiary2 pro$iding
rele$ant e$idence of the e"istence and terms of a K. Ks that areco$ered are so because of their comple"ity or importance.
R2 8B:The one year pro$ision (K made at moment of formation! >f cant be completed in = year (Cwithin ?)L!2 need writing
>f it can be completed in a year without breach of K (not Cwithin
?)L!2 do 3)T need writingRadke v. renon
Facts: 4 o%ered to sell / property for O+@+2 / accepted. / triedto complete the sale but 4 refuses. 4 o%ered to sell lots toneighbors for O+=+ with a letter2 a few didnt want to buy soprice increased to O+@+. The re8uirements for the memo by thecourts were satistems that must be included
=. /arties to the K+. >tems to be soldB. General termsI. onsideration
ourts loosely interpret the signature re8uirement
17
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
18/43
=. #etterheads+. Typed communications6 must be clear it is from the
person specin5unctions
18
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
19/43
4amages
?pecin determining materiality2 account is taken of relief by
reformation2 restitution2 or otherwiseo /E7 doesnt bar e$idence that establishes the mistakes
o /arties must be mistaken as to the same assumption or
it is a unilateral mistake2 making the K $oidable only ifthe $oiding party does not bear the risk
o ;ust a%ect the basic assumption on which the K wasmade
Rest. 9)
o A party bears the risk of mistake when it is allocated to
him in the agreement2 he is aware of the mistake at thetime of formation that he only possesses limitedknowledge2 or the risk is allocated to him by the court
Unconscionability
7est ** =1+2 =1I
Rest. 98
o A mistake at the time of formation by one party may
make the K $oidable if he doesnt bear the risk and thee%ect of enforcement would be unconscionable or theother party had superior knowledge
Lirst 7estatement only allows rescission for mistake due to the
fault of another or where one party has reason to know that themistake e"ists
Rest 99
Dhere a writing embodying an agreement fails to e"press the
correct terms due to a mistake in the writing2 the court may
19
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
20/43
reform the writing to e"press the agreement to the e"tent thatit does not a%ect Brdparty good faith purchasers
Rest 9/
)nly a mistake that in$ol$es a failure to act in good faith will
bar a$oidance or reformationC. "raudK "raudulent or Material Misre&resentationK and
-ondisclosure/art law2 /art common senseHalpert v. Rosenthal ;"raudulent Misre&resentation=
Facts:4 (buyer! says court shouldnt enforce K to buy /
(sellers! house because /s misrepresentation as to termites. 4said / and /s agent had intentionally misrepresented the houseas being termite-free. / armati$ely stated there was notermite problem. / says2 for fraud. misrep2 there has to bee$idence that / knew they were lying. 4 said they cant pro$idethat e$idence2 but innocent misrepresentation is grounds forrescission.
>f one is induced into a contract by material
misre&resentation2 the contract may be rescindede$en if
the misrepresentation was innocent when the other party relieson it to his detriment
Knowing representations are easy cases
?peaker of the misrepresentation bears the loss
4i%erent cateories o! misre&resentation9
=. 4eceit (tort!- re8uires some degree of culpability on the partof the misrepresenter. V has burden of pro$ing that W madestatements that were false and likely to decei$e V
+. ;aterial misrepresentation- a suit to rescind a contractbased on misrepresentation whether it was innocent or not
B. >nnocent misrepresentation- the speaker actually belie$eswhat he is saying. Un8ualif assent is induced by fraudulent or material
misrepresentation the other party may $oid the K
20
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
21/43
=!;ateriality +! Das there reliance B!7easonable
7elianceA. %3%,R* ,=2(PL,;-O-*ISC7OSR0=: Grain merchant was the
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
22/43
dealing demand it F refusal to speak constitutes unfairconduct!
o / intended to mislead F it was the silence that showed
she had info that they wouldnt see for themsel$es(latent concealment! and would need to know
Intentional 3idin or nondisclosure t3at 'as sinifcant
to t3e contract justifes rescission Lair 5ustice and dealing re8uire both parties to disclose material
facts that greatly a%ect $alue
;inor conditions not included
Silence is !raudulent i! a material !act is concealed or
su&&ressed '3en ood !ait3 reGuires disclosure
Dhat constitutes a material fact or condition
ompare to wintonand e"amine the arguments and
ambiguities in between these two positions
#ess up front transaction costs
Rest
These types of cases now allocate risk through standard
contracts*. nconscionabilit,#ooks at both bargaining process and terms of the bargain whilecombining elements of misrepresentation2 undue inQuence2 duress2and nondisclosureCC 2@8B2+illiams v. +alker/0homas Furniture %ompany
Enactment of U by ongress has allowed for contracts that
are unconscionable at the time of their formation to be $oidable
The contract must ha$e an absence of meaningful choice by
one of the parties as well as unreasonable terms
4oes moral obligation become a legal obligation
;eaningfulness of the choice may be negated by a gross
ine8uality of bargaining power onsiderations to obser$e in contract9
=. ;anner in which the contract was entered+. 7easonable opportunity to understand the terms of the
contract with respect to the partys education of lack thereofB. 'argaining power
Dhether the terms are so unfair the enforcement should be
withheld
/rimary concern is the terms of the contract in the light of the
commercial background and the commercial needs of theparticular trade or case
Dhat about freedom to contract
Triggering mechanisms are if there are apparent or ob$ious
ine8ualities of bargaining power and it appears that the partytook ad$antage
?hould stores ha$e to protect customers from themsel$es
?uccess depends on the facts
Dhen the concept of unconscionability de$eloped it appeared
that it would be huge force in K law6 The opposite has been true
;any oppose its application in commercial bargaining
/orrison $. ,ircuit ,ity
22
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
23/43
?ubstanti$e9 A contract is unconscionable when its terms are
unfair and unreasonable
/rocedural9 The relati$e bargaining power
Adhesion contract- a standardi&ed contract o%ered on a take it
or lea$e it basis
Adhesion contracts dont e"ist where meaningful choices e"ist
?tandardi&ation of contracts allows for the use of cheaperpersonnel2 greater eciency2 and more operational Quidity
III. 43at are t3e 5erms o! t3e *eal?
Dhat are the terms of the contract
Dhat do the contract terms mean
A. Inter&retin 53e Areement: #e,ond t3e 4ritten 4ord0hread"ill v. Pea$ody %oal %o.
Facts9 (Agreement contains terms parties didnt
discussHe"press F GA/ >3 K!9 / hired by 4 to probe holes. /se8uipment gets stuck. 3o discussionHe"pression as to whowould pay for damaged e8uipment. (E"trinsic E$idence case F
outside of writing2 no problem2 brought it in! 5rade CustomF places risk of probe loss on driller (4! when no
other agreementsaid otherwiseo 5o be bindinK must be suLcientl, eneral so
&arties could be said to 3ave contracted '3T9 #))K L)7AG7EE;E3T C/7>)7 )7 )3TE;/)7A3E)U? T) >3:/)!
+. Is t3e 'ritin
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
24/43
b. R2 jurisdiction9 admit any rele$ant e$idenceto determine f partial F E"trinsic E$idence admissibleb. Merer Clauses9 indicates writing
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
25/43
Rest. 2B@A completely integrated agreement is adopted by
the parties as a complete and e"clusi$e statement of the terms
;erger clauses that frustrate the intentions of the parties
should not be enforced
Dhen parties disagree as to whether a document represent the
full agreement of the parties and conQicting e$idence e"ists2 a
factual determination is necessaryRo"ers v. f no integration clause e"ists2 rele$ant terms that arentdiscussed in the written agreement re8uire e"trinsic e$idence
?ophistication of the parties is an important factor as they tend
to lea$e out important pro$isions
Trade customs can always be brought in from oral testimony
/E7 doesnt bar information regarding conditions precedent
An agreement is fully integrated when the writing is intended as
a complete and e"clusi$e statement of the terms
An agreement is partially integrated regarding the terms
speci
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
26/43
Agreement before or simultaneous with the adoption of a
writing are admissible to establish=. Dhether the writing is an integrated agreement+. That the agreement is only partially integratedB. The meaning of the writingI. >llegality2 fraud2 duress2 mistake2 lack of consideration2 or
other in$alidating cause1. Grounds for granting or denying rescission2 reformation2speci
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
27/43
3o ambiguity e"ists in most 5urisdictions when a deGU>T )L >3TE3T>)3!9 / constructed bldg
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
28/43
+. A general term 5oined with a speci
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
29/43
. >mpracticabilityS. Lrustration of purposeN. 7epudiation=,. Lailure of Ade8uate Assurance of Luture /erformance==. ;aterial 'reach
#. Conditions
onditions may be used to allocate risk.5,&es o! Conditions01&ress
an be stated e"pressly (and unambiguously!
an be stated ambiguously (and so implied-in-fact!
Constructive- )rder performance
>mplied by law F Cto do 5ustice
E"9 ser$ices F usually paid after ser$ice rendered (i.e.2 autobody work6 employment!
Dhen we talk about e%press conditions2 we cannot say Cbreach. >f a conditionisnt met2 there is not Cbreach but the duty to abide by the agreement ise"cused.All non@&er!ormances are not breac3es
Strict Com&liance4i%erence between promise and condition
E"press conditions modify promissory obligations
Lunction of e"press conditions (8uestion of fact!
Allocate risk of the non-occurrence of critical e$ent to one party or
the other
7eQects parties intent F so thats how it is Cfound
Dhen something is a 8uestion of fact2 it means that the parties can contractaround it.
Condition &recedentF the obligation ne$er arises if the condition isnt metCondition subseGuentF the obligation happened2 but later the condition
failed
+romissor, obliationsare under the control of the partyConditionsare not under the control of the party
E"press conditions are di%erent from promises4i%erences between promise condition
Triggering of obligation
o /romise - Agreement between the parties (Lormation!.
/romises are Cabsolute. )nce formation has happened2they are not changingHgoing away.
o ondition F uncertain e$ent (Cconditional!
)bligation re8uires what le$el of performanceHoccurrence
o /romise F absolute but can be performed partiallyo ondition F ?trict compliance
E%ect of not meeting the obligation
o /romise F breach (partial or material!
/artial breach F stuck
;aterial breach F full - done
o ondition F dischargeHe"cused from K duty
29
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
30/43
Rest. 22)@ A condition is an event '3ic3 must occur be!ore&er!ormance under a is due
onditions are about when2 if e$er2 a party must perform4est $. 70
,onditions precedentmust be closely followed when e"pressly
laid out in an agreement
Rest. 229E%ects of 3on-)ccurrence of a onditiono /erformance of a duty sub5ect to a condition cannot
become due unless the condition occurs or is e"cusedo 3on-occurrence of the condition discharges the duty
under the K once performance of the condition can nolonger occur
o 3on-occurrence is not a breach unless a duty e"ists for
that conditionPullman %5R v. 0uck/it/away rid"eport 3nc.
Facts:()3?T7UT>PE )34>T>)3? )L EY:A3GE >3
U77E3T /7AT>E!9 4 (seller! and Pestpro (buyer! signed a Kfor sale of property. P deposits =,,K in escrow with 4s lawyers.E"tended closing period many times2 Ithtime 4 told P to pay
fee2 P refused. P wanted out of the K F Ps lawyer found loophole(incorrect description of land sold!2 sent letter cancelling the Kon B defects2 no closing took place. Trial court found for 4
Unless otherwise specif one party is to go
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
31/43
Facts:(L>3A# /A;E3T /7)P>?>)3- C/A-D:E3-/A!9 Gen
contractor had two Ks with two subs for building pro5ect. 'othKs said gen would make
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
32/43
4aiver=. intentional relin8uishment of a known right6 or+. E"cuse of the nonoccurrence of or a delay in the occurrence of a
condition or duty Dai$er may be e%ectuated by one party (unilateral!
Dai$er is retractable in absence of reliance
Dai$er only applies to conditions F doesnt apply to promisesModifcation
the changing of the terms of the agreement which may diminish or
increase the duty of either party The result of the bilateralaction of both parties to the sales
transaction ;odinstead2
the e8uitable doctrine of estoppel looks to whether the partyasserting estoppel would otherwise su%er an ine8uitable detrimentbased upon the conduct of the other party
)ynamic v. (achine 5 ,lectric %o.
Facts9 / (buyer! agreed to buy lathe from 4. /ayment in segments F in
meantime2 / rented a lathe from 4. / told 4 rental lathe had problemsand if these problems werent f modif wai$er2can retract unilaterally if youre the one that bene
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
33/43
wai$er2 wai$er can be inferred from circumstances and partiesconduct
(ay %enters 3nc. v. Paris %roissant
Facts:=, year lease agreement bHt landlord and lessee2 lease
began April =12 =NS@2 guarantee signed that if 4 defaults2 must
pay penalties2 if in default after two years indi$idual guarantorsliable2 lease says to be paid on ;/)??>'>#>TH>;/#>E4 )34>T>)3!9 / and 4 entered K
F 4 agreed to let / ha$e use of ;usic :all2 so they can use themday and night for concerts. After K was made and beforeconcert2 hall destroyed by
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
34/43
The occurrence of unforeseen accidents that destroy the reason
for the K may discharge the duties of the parties
This stipulation is im&lied
Im&lied conditionF the continued e"istence of the hall being
up at the time of concert (the continued e"istence of the hall isnecessary for the ful
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
35/43
Facts:4 chemical manufacturer renting warehouse from /2
some chemicals are ha&ardous but / not e"pressly aware whensigning lease2 city ordinance later passed that states youcannot ha$e ha&ardous materials2
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
36/43
;U?T #))K AT T:E >7U;?TA3E? F LAT?
Lor frustration of purpose2 impracticability2 and impossibility C0-5RA7
ISS0: A77OCA5IO- O" RIS
0. 01cuse 53rou3 Actions O! a +art, #e!ore +er!ormance isOt3er'ise *ue
Truman 8. 9latt ons ,o." Inc. $. chupf 7epudiation must be $ery clearly communicated
Anticipatory repudiation must be clear and une8ui$ocal
Rest. 29B- a repudiation is a statement indicating that a
party will commit a breach that would gi$e the other a claim fordamages or a $oluntary armati$e act which makesperformance impossible
Dhether an anticipatory repudiation occurred is a 8uestion for
the 5ury
7etraction may occur if the other party has not substantially
altered their position and does not immediately refuse theretraction
Rest. 29- a failure to pro$ide ade8uate assurance may
represent a breach when a party reasonably demands them Rest 29- a party may retract its repudiation
;odern doctrine re8uires V to mitigate damages
#orcon Power v. #ia"ra (ohawk Power
4emands for ade8uate assurance of future performance are
allowed in long and comple" deals
4emands for assurance may come
=. ommunication from one party making the other unsure+. uestions about sol$ency
#aw is mo$ing toward allowing parties to seek assurances
>f a demanding party o$erreacts2 they may become the
breaching party
These demands allow parties to reach an e8uilibrium in terms ofuniformity and reliability in resol$ing problems without 5udicialinter$ention
>f the demanding partys assurance isnt met2 they may take
reasonable action to act as if repudiation occurred
Rest. 2)8
". 01cuse +rovided b, a Material #reac3 b, t3e Ot3er +art,/ossible responses to breach9
=. Dai$er+. AmendmentB. /artial breachI. Ade8uate assurance1. Total breach
Rest 28/@ performance can only be suspended due to the otherpartys material breach6 the duty to tender performance is conditionedon the other partys not being in material breach;i#son $. ,ity of ,ranston
A contracting party may cease performance and seek damages
if a material breach that goes to the essence of the K occurs
uestions of materiality are to be determined by the 5ury unless
no reasonable person could
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
37/43
o E"tent of depri$ation of bene
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
38/43
The failure to perform one part does not bar reco$ery for
performance of another The performance of each di$ision of the ser$ice will be impliedly
a condition precedent to the reco$ery of a correspondingportion of the price
The party who has performed one of these partys has the right to its
agreed e8ui$alent 5ust as if the parties had made a separate contractwith regard to that pair of corresponding parties (7+K +I,!
6. Ho' *oes t3e 7a' 0n!orce t3e *eal?A. S&ecifc +er!ormance
The granting of speci
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
39/43
B. The in5unction wont pre$ent the employee from possessingreasonable mean of making a li$ing (pre$enting thee8ui$alent of re8uiring W to perform the K!
I. The party seeking the in5unction is not in default or unableto perform its obligations (lean hands!
/olicy 5ustin contrast to the past2 where ?/ was granted typically for
heirlooms or priceless works of art2 ?/ is now commonlygranted for output and re8uirements Ks in$ol$ing a peculiarlya$ailable source or market
A party may not get ?/ e$en if agreed to in the K2 if the
breaching partys sole remaining obligation is to pay money#. *amaes and t3e Conce&t o! 0Lcient #reac3
:olmes- there is no moral component to the law of contracts. A partymust pay damages for breach but nothing else.
This attitude is supported by the lack of puniti$e damages in contactlaw.0Lcient breac3- if W can make more money by breaching a K than Wwould ha$e to pay in e%pectation damagesto V2 than e$eryone isbetter off by W breaching and repairing V while W uses its resourcesmore eciently
This theory fails to take into account transaction costs and attorneysfees.. +enaltiesK 7iGuidated *amaesK and 0Lcient #reac3
Judge /osner represents one of the many proponents ofenforcing li8uidated damages clauses. Especially when a
substantial corporation is in$ol$ed2 the promise to pay a penaltyclause is a way of reducing credit risk and may be essential to some$alue- ma"imi&ing Ks. The penalty clause could also represent a$aluable negotiating tool when one party wishes to take ad$antage ofan ecient breach.2. *issentin 6ie' on 0Lcient #reac3
ertainty of performance is the essential $alue of many Ks andto allow parties to breach at will undermines the public con
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
40/43
Hawkins v. (cGee
C:airy :and ase
General rule gi$es e"pectancy damages
/uts V in as good of position as he would ha$e been in had W
performed
4i%erence in $alue
E"pectancy may be dicult to compute in some conte"ts 4amages are compensation for a breach measured in the terms
of the KPanorama illa"e Homeowners 2ss4n v. Golden Rule Roo1n"
"acts:4 contracted to install roofs and issue manufacturers
warranties. onstruction was defecti$e and warranties notissued
Rule:>n5ured party must establish cost to remedy breach6
contractor then bears the burden to challenge the e$idence toreduce the award.
Lein"an" v. (andan +eed oard
"acts:Deed control company - ity mistakenly assigned large
lots to other company Lor a breach of K2 V is entitled to compensation for the loss
su%ered2 but can reco$er only the amount that would ha$ebeen gained by full performance
>n a K for ser$ices2 the $alue of the K when breached is
=. Vs reasonable e"penditures that would ha$e been spent inperformance subtracted from
+. the anticipated re$enues
V may reco$er lost profits if they are reasonable and not
speculati$e
)$erhead costs are not deducted as they must be paid anyway
and thus factoring them in causes V to pay them twice
K price is reduced by reduced by e"penses actually sa$ed
Groves v. f there is a windfall2 it must go to the innocent party
ost of completion $s. 4iminution in $alue
orrect doctrine is the cost of remedying the defect
W is liable for the reasonable costs of doing what they promised
to do and ha$e willfully declined to do V has bargained for the performance2 not the increase in the
$alue of the land
>f the court
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
41/43
"acts:4 contracted for the right to strip mine coal on /s
property for nterest costs
I. 7eliance costs0. 7imitation on Mone, *amaes
7imitations on damaes
=. Loreseeability (7+K B1=HU +-=1!+. ertainty (7+K B1+!B. ;inimi&ation or mitigation (7+K B1,HU +-=+!
ConseGuential damaes- the dislocation of ones business by thefailure of another party to perform.Rest 89B;= Avoidabilit, as a 7imitation on *amaes
(=! E"cept as stated in ?ubsection (+!2 damages are not r
eco$erable forlossthat the in5ured party could ha$e a$oided without undue risk2 burden or humiliation.
(+! The in5ured party is not precluded from reco$ery by the rule stated?ubsection (=! to the e"tent that he has made reasonable butunsuccessful e%orts to a$oid loss.
Parker v. 8?th%entury/Fo! Film %orp.
"acts:Actress contracted for lead in
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
42/43
4i%erent and inferior employment will not be considered a
substitute re8uiring mitigation
Just because employment is different2 doesnt mean V may
re5ect it
Geographical concerns depend on the career path
;easure of reco$ery for a wrongfully dismissed employee is the
salary for the period of ser$ice agreed upon2 less the amountthe employer pro$es the employee has earned or reasonablycould ha$e earned from other employment
The employment must be comparable or substantially similar
/olicy F party who has been in5ured cannot sit idly by and allow
damages to accumulate
Ultimate 8uestion is whether the employee acted reasonably
Rest 89F Unforeseeability 7elated #imitations on 4amages
(=! 4amages are not reco$erable for loss that the party in
breach did not ha$e reason to foresee as a probable result ofthe breach when the contract was made.
(+! #oss may be foreseeable as a probable result of a breach
because it follows from the breach9a. in the ordinary course of e$ents2 orb. as a result of special circumstances2 or beyond the
ordinary course of e$ents2 that the party in breach hadreason to know.
Hadley v. a!endale
"acts:/ sends component of steam engine for replacement F 4
delays shipping component causing /s mills shutdown to bee"tended
V may only reco$er damages that were contemplated at the
time of formation (the direct damages F the cost of shipping!
Llow of damages go only as far as foreseeable
>f a K is made under special circumstances2 they must be known
to both parties in order for lost pro
-
8/9/2019 Final Contracts Outline Cimino
43/43
onse8uential damages arent awarded if they could be
pre$ented by co$er or otherwise
V isnt precluded from damages by unsuccessful attempts to
co$er
>t is reasonable for V to rely on Ws promises that the breach will
be remedied
V isnt re8uired to tell W how much income relies on the K2 aslong as the lost income was reasonably foreseeable
V must produce e$idence of the loss in proportion to the conte"t
of the claim (The bigger the claim2 the more e$idence re8uired!
;ass produced items to anonymous buyers dont allow for
conse8uential damages