Contracts Cases

Front 1

O’Callaghan v. Waller & Beckwith Realty Co. (exculpatory clause)

Back 1

π (tenant) falls on sidewalk and sues ∆ (LL). ∆ claims nonliability because of an exculpatory clause.

Front 2

Klar v. Parcel Room, Inc. (exculpatory clause)

Back 2

π leaves package with ∆, who gives it to wrong patron. Exculpatory clause limited liability to $25, even though the item lost was worth over $1000.

Front 3

Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (exculpatory clause)

Back 3

Scissor-Tail (∆) represented a rock group and arranged for a series of concerts with Graham (π). After a disagreement, π files suit despite a boilerplate arbitration clause.

Front 4

Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (exculpatory clause)

Back 4

After buying a new car, steering wheel goes crazy and injures π. ∆ denied liability b/c of an exculpatory clause.

Front 5

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Store (procedural unsconscionability)

Back 5

πs bought items on credit, and a provision stated until it was paid off in full, store (∆) could repossess any items purchased @ the store. π defaulted and ∆ tries to reposses other items (not paid off) than the one which was in default.

Front 6

Jones v. Star Credit Corp. (substantive unconscionability)

Back 6

π, a welfare recipient, agrees to purchase a freezer for $900. After interests and insurance it will cost π $1,234.80. The fair market value of the freezer is $300. After she had paid $619.88, π files suit, seeking to prevent ∆ from enforcing the contract.

Front 7

Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (unconscionability w/ employeement agreement arbitration clause)

Back 7

π (employee) claims sexual harssament files a wrongful termination suit on this ground. ∆ (employer) says they must arbitrate b/c of a clause in the employment agreement. [TC  π, ACH: R&R, H: R&R - No enforcement]

Front 8

Gianni v. R. Russell & Co. (Parol Evidence Rule)

Back 8

π (lessee) rents from ∆ with the oral agreement that he would have exclusive rights to sell soft drinks, but they did not include this in the lease. When ∆ allegedly breaches and allows the tenant next door to sell soda, π sues for breach o K. [TCπ, H: R&R]

Front 9

Masterson v. Sine (Parol Evidence Rule)

Back 9

Deed has repurchase option, but the grantee says it's only for the grantor. After grantor files for bankruptcy, tries to exercise the repurchase option.

Front 10

Bollinger v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry Stripping and Construction Co. (Parol Evidence Rule)

Back 10

∆ contracted with π to deposit their construction waste material on π's land. They orally agreed ∆ would sandwich the waste and replace the topsoil, but that didn't make it into the K. ∆ did so at first, then stopped. [TC π, H: Aff.]

Front 11

O’Callaghan v. Waller & Beckwith Realty Co. (exculpatory clause)

Back 11

Public policy must be considered when deciding whether to enforce an exculpatory clause of a K. In this case, they enforced it, but most modern law would not have enforced it.

Front 12

Klar v. Parcel Room, Inc. (exculpatory clause)

Back 12

Public policy must be considered when deciding whether to enforce an exculpatory clause of a K. While the courts were not in agreement about the outcome, they ultimately did NOT enforce exculpatory clause.

Front 13

Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (exculpatory clause)

Back 13

An adhesion contract is “fully enforceable” unless a provision does not fall under the “reasonable expectations of the weaker or ‘adhering’ party”, OR if it would be unconscionable to enforce the deal.

Front 14

Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (exculpatory clause)

Back 14

An express warranty, which limits a manufacturer's liability to replace defective parts, is void, as it is against public policy.

Front 15

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Store (procedural unsconscionability)

Back 15

Unconscionability consists of two elements: 1) procedural - absence of meaningful choice; and 2) substantive - the terms are unfair, unreasonably favorable to one party, with fairness assessed at the time of transaction. Do anaylsis in this order.

Front 16

Jones v. Star Credit Corp. (substantive unconscionability)

Back 16

If the terms of a K are too outrageous (substantive unconscionability) a court may refused to enforce them.

Front 17

Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (unconscionability w/ employeement agreement arbitration clause)

Back 17

There is both a procedural and substantive elements to find unconscionability. This court considers the two on a sliding scale, the more you have of one the less you need of the other. Also need to view the clause in the context of the whole, not just in isolation.

Front 18

Gianni v. R. Russell & Co. (Parol Evidence Rule)

Back 18

The Parol Evidence Rule bars the introduction of any evidence to negociated terms that were not part of the agreement when the final written agreement is deemed to have been completed by a judge. - A Completed K is determined by looking at the contract itself and that's all.

Front 19

Masterson v. Sine (Parol Evidence Rule)

Front 20

Bollinger v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry Stripping and Construction Co. (Parol Evidence Rule)

Back 20

Parties are bound by a written K, however when there is a "actual and not hypothetical" mutual mistake as to a term, a party can bring in evidence to show otherwise. The burden of a π in this case is very "heavy."