Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/35

Click to flip

35 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Hawkins v. McGee
Expectation Damages Principle: Goal is to make victim as well off as if the contract hadn’t been breached.
Groves v. Wunder
Plaintiff is entitled to benefit of the bargain.
Peevyhouse v. Garland
Plaintiff’s damages are capped at value of expectation damages, the increased value of the land. Wrongly decided.
Acme Mills v. Johnson
When the breach results in no loss to the victim, there are no damages to award.
Laurin v. DeCarolis
Gravel. Defendant is liable for the value of item removed from land under contract, but not for labor costs. The best measure for expectation damages may be indirect.
Louise Nursing Home v. Dix
Fundamental rule: damages are not for putting plaintiff in a better position, but compensating for the value of the performance. This is the cost of completion.
Watt v. Nevada RR
Plaintiff can recover market value of damaged goods less cost of transporting to market. (Burned hay)
IL Central RR v. Crail
Compensation is for damage plaintiff actually suffers, the accurate measure is what he pays to replace item. (Coal) You have to look at the relevant market – here, the wholesale market – to calculate damages.
Missouri Furnace
Damages should be based on difference between first contract and cover contract. Difference between contract and spot prices on delivery dates consistently benefits buyer too much. NB: Court decided measure incorrectly.
Neri v. Retail Marine
Regular vendor of goods is entitled to lost profits. The gross profits are a good proxy for cost of selling item.
Freund v. Washington Square Press, Inc.
Damages are not measured by what the defaulting party saved by the breach, but by the natural and probable consequences of the breach to the plaintiff.
Fera v. Village Plaza
Plaintiffs are entitled to provable lost profits.
Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge
Expectation damages are limited by plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages. Once contract is repudiated, duty to mitigate kicks in immediately.
Hadley v. Baxendale
Damages are limited to what would have reasonably been in the mind of both parties. Information forcing rule. Must have notice.
Lamkins v. I’nat’l Harv.
Limit damages that arise from special circumstances and are so large as to be out of proportion to consideration. Mere notice is not enough.
Chgo Col. Club v. Dempsey
Necessary expenses incurred in the furtherance of the contract are recoverable. A party may recover only the damages which naturally flow from and are the result of the act complained of.
Security Stove v. Am. Ry. Express
Expenses made in reliance on the contract are recoverable even if expenses would have been made regardless of breach. (Parts didn’t arrive, trip was pointless)
Albert v. Armstrong
The promisee may recover costs of preparing for performance, promisor can reduce award by proving amount that would have been lost with performance.
U.S. v. Algernon Blair
Quantum meruit. The promisee upon breach has the option to forego any suit on the contract and claim reasonable value of his performance. The standard for measuring is what such services would cost if they had been purchased at time and place they were rendered.
Britton v. Turner
Where a party receives value – takes and uses the materials or has advantage from the labor – he is liable to pay the reasonable worth of what he has received. The contract price for the service cannot be exceeded.
Muldoon v. Lynch
Where it appears on the face of the contract that the parties intended a penalty courts will not enforce the clause, especially when the result would be a sum disproportionate to any actual damage.
Fretwell v. Protection Alarm Co.
An agreement limiting the amount of damages recoverable for breach is not an agreement to pay either liquidated damages or a penalty.
Van Wagner Advertising v. S&M Enterprises
Specific performance of a contract to lease “unique” space is properly denied when damages are an adequate remedy to compensate the tenant and equitable relief would impose a disproportionate burden on the defaulting landlord.
Lumley v. Wagner
A Court of Equity can only grant an injunction for specific performance.
Curtice Bros. v. Catts
Nothing to do w/ uniqueness of tomatoes, everything to do w/ encouraging people to honor mutually beneficial contracts.
Dallas Cowboys v. Harris
A good or service is unique if it cannot easily be acquired elsewhere. The court can restrain a party from taking part in a new contract.
Pingley v Brunson
Courts cannot order specific performance for personal service contracts unless the performer has some unique ability.
Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Torborg
An employee’s promise not to compete may not be enforced unless the employee has learned trade secrets, has made contacts with members of the employer’s customer list, or when the employee’s services are unique. Even then, a court might still refuse to enforce it on the grounds of public policy. Exception: military.
Mills v. Wyman
A mere verbal promise, w/o any consideration, cannot be enforced by action. 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.
Webb v. McGowin
Where promisee cares for, improves, and preserves property of promisor, though done w/o request, it is sufficient consideration for the promisor’s subsequent agreement to pay for the service, because of the material benefit received. It becomes a valid, enforceable contract.
Hamer v. Sidway
A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. In general a waiver of any legal right at the request of another party is a sufficient consideration for a promise.
Fischer v. Union Trust Co. (Bertha & dad)
A void promise is no more effective than no promise. Only performance of a promise can be of any avail to the claimant.
Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank
Promissory estoppel prevents a promisor from denying hte existence of a promise when the promisee reasonably and foreseeably relies on the promise and acts to her detriment and suffers an injustice that can only be avoided by enforcement of the promise.
Duff v. Wood
An enforceable contract may be construed through an implied promise of one of the parties. Cardozo relies on implied “good-faith” effort of Wood to try to sell Lady Duff’s stuff.
Feld v. Henry S. Levy & Sons (bread crumbs)
A contract by a seller to provide a good exclusively places an obligation on the seller to make their best effort to supply the good.