Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Uncle promised nephew $5000 if he would refrain from drinking, swearing, etc. until the nephew turned 21. Held: abandons some legal right in the present or limits his legal freedom of action in the future as an inducement for the promise.
|
Hamer v. Sidway
|
|
|
Bastard child, actually not plaintiffs.
Settlement of invalid child support claim sufficient consideration. |
Fiege v. Bohe
|
|
|
Plaintiff Dorton did business as "The Carpet Mart" and purchased carpets from defendant Collins & Aikman Corp at least 55 times over a 3 year period. Plaintiff discovered that some of the purchased carpets were an inferior carpet fiber. Plaintiff sued the defendant for fraud and misrepresentation. Defendant argued that plaintiff must go to arbitration. Held: Under UCC 2-207, if an arbitration provision materially alters an existing agreement, it will not be incorporated into the contract unless expressly agreed to by both parties.
|
Dorton v. Collins & Aikman Corp
|
|
|
While drinkng, D jokes about selling farm. Held: If offer and acceptance in good faith, "undisclosed intention is immaterial".
|
Lucy v. Zehmer
|
|
|
Held: that absent an expressed interest that no contract shall exist, mutual assent between the parties, even though oral or informal, to exchange acts or promises is sufficient to create a binding contract; and (b) that to avoid the obligation of a binding contract, at least one of the parties must express an intention not to be bound until a writing is executed.
|
Consarc. Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank
|
|
|
Kiefer purchased an automobile from Howe Motors. At the time of purchase Kiefer was a minor, but he represented in the sales contract that he was an adult. After becoming an adult Kiefer returned the automobile and sued to recover the price of the automobile.
|
Kiefer v. Fred Howe Motors, Inc.
|
|
|
D awards P a pension "for her many years of long and faithful service." D dosen't pay fully. Held: Past consideration not consid, but estoppel.
|
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co
|
|
|
Son became sick while at sea, father promised to pay back expenses. Held: The moral obligation of the defendant is not found to be of the kind that can form consideration for an express promise.
|
Mills v. Wyman
|
|
|
Dropped pine block from upper floor, stopped it from injuring man below at great injury to himself. Held: D's moral obligation sufficient consideration.
|
Webb v. McGowin
|
|
|
Brother in law offered house to widow, repudiated. Held: not sufficient consideration to be a contract.
|
Kirksey v. Kirksey
|
|
|
Wife signed promisory note for forebearance of debt of her husband. Promise to forbear illusory because it does not impose commitment.
|
Strong v. Sheffield
|
|
|
Seller of land for mall reneged, claimed contract illusory since contingent upon "satisfactory leases". Held: Satisfaction of buyer sufficient consid, as long as GF.
|
Mattei v. Hopper
|
|
|
Oil company wanted to cease contract because oil prices rose above that accounted for in contract, argued no mutuality.
|
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corporation
|
|
|
Fashion lady. Agent to give her half profits. Lady agrued illusory. Held: reasonable efforts constitute consideration.
|
Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
|
|
|
Grandfather promises grdaughter to support her; dies, estate dosen't pay. Held: PE entitles girl to promised funds.
|
Ricketts v. Scothorn
|
|
|
Ct rejected that past perfor. consideration for pension. P then argues reliance. Held: employee entitled to pension due to reliance.
|
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co
|
|
|
Liquor distributors relied on D's promise to continue to use them. D dropped P, then made cheaper contract. Held: P relied on D.
|
D & G Stout, Inc. v. Bacardi Imports, Inc.
|
|
|
Implied contract btwn physician and unconscious patient? Held: Yes.
|
Cotnam v. Wisdom
|
|
|
Landscaper sued estate of dead buyer of house, even though they contracted with developer. Held: "A plaintiff is not entitled to employ the legal fiction of quasi-contract to ‘substitute one promisor or debtor for another’.”
|
Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp.
|
|
|
P acceptance of non-propsal does not form agreement.
|
Owen v. Tunison
|
|
|
Satement of price and terms cannot be "accepted", is not an offer.
|
Fairmount Glassworks v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co.
|
|
|
Offer in an advertisement cannot be modified by unstated "house rule" (open only to females, in this case).
|
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store
|
