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

1/18

Click to flip

18 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
8) Problems of performance a) Good faith performance i) Introduction b) The doctrine of Substantial Performance
(1) An important “implied in fact” condition is that neither party will act in _____ so as to hinder or prevent the performance of the other party.
ii) An important “implied in fact” condition is that neither party will act in bad faith so as to hinder or prevent the performance of the other party.
iii) Does a party to a contract have an implied obligation not to do anything to prevent the other party from carrying out his part of the agreement? [competition with other contracting party—Patterson v. Meyerhofer]
(1) Yes (2) Any party that causes the breach of an agreement is precluded both from recovering damages for its nonperformance and from asserting the breach as a defense to a suit on the contract. (3) Every contract includes an implied undertaking by each party not to intentionally do anything to prevent the other party from carrying out the agreement.
iv) Is a seller’s performance excused if the buyer makes the goods more expensive by making additional purchases? [Performance made difficult—Iron Trade Products Co. v. Wilkoff Co.,]
(1) No.
v) Can the amount in the Bank’s NSF (non sufficient funds) charges be considered a penalty for breach of contract and/or unconscionable (where they are higher than expected by customers)? Is a bank obligated to set its NSF fees in good faith?
(1) No (2) Yes (3) Unconscionably is determined at the time the contract is formed so it applies to contract terms rather than performance.
vi) In a suit for breach of a “best efforts” clause, must the performing party show there was nothing significant it could have done to perform that would not have been financially disastrous? [“Best efforts” clause—Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Corp]
(1) Yes (2) D at least had to explore whether steps not involving substantial losses could have been taken to stop or at least lessen the rate of decline of sales. Instead, D acted in total disregard to P’s volume of sales.
vii) Does the requirement of good faith require a party to alert the other party to a contract to any terms of the contract that might be unfavorable to the other party? [Duty to Remind Other Party of Contract Term—Market Street Associates v. Frey]
(1) No (2) To act in good faith, the court held that P should have reminded D about the option. (3) P was not required to alert D to the existence of the option, unless P was taking deliberate advantage of D’s oversight. P’s state of mind must be examined on remand.
viii) May an at-will employment contract be breached by a bad faith termination? [“At Will” employment contract—Fortune v. National Cash Register co.]
(1) Yes (2) D’s written contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (3) Requirements of good faith are pervasive in our law and afford employees a certain stability of employment.
i) Where complete performance by one party is a constructive condition precedent or concurrent to the other party’s duty of counter performance, that condition may be excused if the party has rendered ___...
(1) Substantial performance.
ii) Do courts use a case-by-case approach to define substantial performance?
(1) Yes
(1) Performance is considered substantial if there are no “____” defects
iii) Performance is considered substantial if there are no “structural” defects
(1) Some courts use the term “_____” to designate substantial performance
iv) Some courts use the term “workmanlike” to designate substantial performance
(1) Most modern authorities agree that the test for what is substantial performance should be whether the breach of contract by the performing party is a “_____ “ Or “____” one.
v) Most modern authorities agree that the test for what is substantial performance should be whether the breach of contract by the performing party is a “material “ Or “minor” one.
(1) When performance is substantial, the performing party may enforce the contract, but the other party is entitled to ___ or ____ from the normal deduction is for the amount it would cost to repair the deficiency or make the work conform fully to the contract.
vi) When performance is substantial, the performing party may enforce the contract, but the other party is entitled to deduct or offset from the amount due whatever damages he has suffered from the defective performance.
(1) If repair or reconstruction would involve substantial economic waste, the deduction would be amount by which the deficiency ____ the _____ of the completed structure.
vii) If repair or reconstruction would involve substantial economic waste, the deduction would be amount by which the deficiency lessens the value of the completed structure.
(1) Even if there is no substantial performance, the performing party may recover for the ____ ___ of _____ conferred.
viii) Even if there is no substantial performance, the performing party may recover for the reasonable value of benefits conferred.
ix) If complete performance in accord with contract specification s is a condition precedent to payment, and if substantial performance has been rendered, will a minor failure to perform be excused? [Substitution of materials—Jacob & Youngs v. Kent]
(1) Yes. (2) If the omission is trivial and not willful, it will be excused and damages fro the minor breach of condition will be allowed rather than holding that there is a breach of condition forfeiting the entire contract.
x) May a contractor claim he has substantially performed if half of the major systems of the structure have not been completed? [major portions of structure only half finished—Kreyer v. Driscoll]
(1) No. (2) Wile a valid recession may require P to sue in quantum meruit, failure to rescind does not make unsubstantial performance substantial. (3) P still has a cause of action [half performing party] in quantum meruit.