Contracts Cases Only

Front 1

Hawkins v. McGee

Back 1

Doctor was to perform skin graft on patient’s hand. Doctor says patient should be home in three to four days. Doctor guaranteed to make hand 100% better. Holding: It was proper to submit the question of whether the doctor made a contract to jury.

Front 2

Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow

Back 2

Customer purchases a boat for fishing. The brochure said “delivers the kind of performance you need to get to the prime offshore fishing grounds.” The boat did not go fast enough.Holding: Not a warranty because it is a description or a kind of opinion.

Front 3

United State Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Back 3

Contracted for a release on a specific date of a book in paperback. Publisher released paperback early, affecting revenue from hardcovers.Holding: Court awarded lost profit, but did not award additional money reflecting profit the breaching part made, as that would equate to punitive damages

Front 4

Sullivan v. O’Connor

Back 4

Patient has nose job done to improve acting career. Expects two procedures. After three procedures looks worse.Holding: Court allowed pain and suffering damages based on expectancy theory as the final procedure was not expected from the contract. Uses ex ante perspective.

Front 5

White v. Benkowski

Back 5

P has no water and contracts with D to use water. D believes P is using too much water and shuts off access.Holding: Reversal of initial punitive damages awarded because contract law does not allow recovery of punitive damages

Front 6

Hamer v. Sidway

Back 6

Uncle promises $5,000 if nephew stops smoking, drinking, and gambling. Puts money in account, then dies. Estate doesn’t want to pay.Holding: The uncle made a promise in exchange for a forbearance. Valid contract.

Front 7

Dyer v. National By-Products, Inc.

Back 7

P was injured on job. D offered lifetime employment if P doesn’t sue. P agrees but is later terminated. D argues no consideration because no forbearance of a viable cause of action because worker’s comp will coverHolding: If both parties went into agreement, can be found to be a good faith belief the cause of action was viable, so should go to jury.

Front 8

Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co.

Back 8

P was employed at D. President says for P’s service, when she retires, will pay $200 per month for life. Stop paying after some time.Holding: No consideration because the bargain was in exchange for past actions.

Front 9

Mills v. Wyman

Back 9

D’s son was ill. P took care of him until death. D promised to repay for good deeds towards son but did not follow through.Holding: Nonsuit was proper as no consideration for moral obligations

Front 10

Webb v. McGowin

Back 10

P was throwing boxes, saw D, and stopped the box form hitting him. In the process, P becomes badly crippled for life and unable to do physical and mental labor. D promises to pay $15/two weeks to P for remainder of P’s life for what he did. After D dies, payments discontinued by estate.Holding: If P saved D from grievous bodily harm, and D subsequently agreed to pay, it became an enforceable contract

Front 11

Kirksey v. Kirksey

Back 11

D told P if she comes to see him, he would let her have a place to raise family. She went. He required her to leave after two years.Holding: This was a conditional gift and therefore no consideration.

Front 12

Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber

Back 12

D was an at will employee who entered into a non-competition agreement in exchange for continued employment. After leaving, D broke the agreement.Holding: The non-competition agreement had consideration but the trial court must consider the reasonableness of the consideration.

Front 13

Strong v. Sheffield

Back 13

P sold a business to D’s husband. Husband couldn’t pay so D signed a promissory note to pay in exchange for P’s promise to forbear paying note away or bringing to bank for collection. P tried to collect two years later.Holding: P’s promise was illusory because could collect at any time after forbearing for any period of time. Therefore, no consideration.

Front 14

Mattei v. Hopper

Back 14

P entered a contract to purchase land dependent on acquisition of satisfactory leases in a certain time period. D argued satisfaction clause was illusoryHolding: There is proper consideration and the clause is not illusory because P must put a good faith effort in to acquire satisfactory leases.

Front 15

Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Group

Back 15

P contracted with D to purchase product. D stopped supplying, arguing that the price protection clause allowed P to purchase form other suppliers whenever they wanted, thus destroying mutuality of agreement and consideration.Holding: On the face of the agreement, there was mutuality of agreement and consideration.

Front 16

Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon

Back 16

D entered into a contract giving P exclusive rights with her permission to place D’s name on products for endorsement. D endorsed things without P’s knowledge. P sued and D claimed no consideration because P could do nothing.Holding: There is consideration because of the implicit good faith the contract imports.

Front 17

Ricketts v. Scothorn

Back 17

Grandfather promises granddaughter money so she won’t need to work. She stops working. After his death, payments stop. Argument of no consideration.Holding: No consideration but grandfather intentionally influenced granddaughter to changer her position. There was reliance so promissory estoppel is right.

Front 18

Wright v. Newman

Back 18

P is not natural or adopted father to a child. P’s name is on birth certificate. D wants P to pay child support.Holding: P signing name to birth certificate led D to forbear seeking actual father. Therefore, there is reliance and should be promissory estoppel.

Front 19

Cotnam v. Wisdom

Back 19

Doctors helped a man thrown form a car who could not assent to help. Sued for services rendered. Dispute over instruction on ability to pay and doctor’s ability.Holding: It will be assumed someone would assent to medical help, thus entering into contract. Must look at reasonable rate. Give both parties a fair deal.

Front 20

Pyeatte v. Pyeatte

Back 20

Wife supports husband through law school under the agreement that he would then support her through graduate degree. He files for divorce before holding up his end.Holding: Not enough definiteness n contract for breach, but may be able to ward restitution

Front 21

Lucy v. Zehmer

Back 21

Contract entered for sale of land. D claims no assent because he was joking and they were drunk. P claims negotiated language, not very drunk, and wife involved, so yes assent.Holding: The contract is valid following R2K 20(2)(b) because P had no reason to know D’s intent, however D knew P’s intent

Front 22

Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.

Back 22

An internet program required people to scroll past the download button to get to termsHolding: Consumers did not agree to terms and a reasonable person would not scroll past the button to view terms, so the contract is not valid

Front 23

Owen v. Tunison

Back 23

P inquired about sale of land. D responded not possible to sell unless he received 16k. P accepted terms for 16k. D argues this was still negotiation.Holding: terms were open ended, no specific intent to be bound, P inquired to buy D’s land, sale of land, no offer.

Front 24

Southworth v. Oliver

Back 24

P asked D if he was planning to sell property. P said he had the money available. D later sent letter to P and three others with info on price and interest to buy.Holding: terms were detailed (some left to be determined), evidence both ways for intent to be bound, D sent letter to P who wanted to buy, sale of land, yes an offer (unless P was aware the letter was sent to others)

Front 25

Harvey v. Facey

Back 25

P inquired about sale of land from D. Requested to telegraph lowest price and said “answer paid”. D gave a price. P agreed to buy.Holding: terms open ended with a possible specific price, no intent shown by D to be bound, P inquired about land, sale of land, no offer

Front 26

Fairmount Glass Works v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co.

Back 26

Crunden requested price for glass jars from Fairmount. Fairmount gave a quote for immediate acceptance. Crunden placed an order. Fairmount did not fill.Holding: terms of deal very specific, intent shown by Fairmount saying “for immediate acceptance” in their quote, Crunden inquired and Fairmount gave detailed response, sale of glass jars, there is an offer.

Front 27

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store

Back 27

Advertisement for a single stole valued 139.50 for $1, first come first served. P was first and store refused to sell saying women only. Holding: “First come, first served” constituted an offer because the advertisement had a lot of specificity

Front 28

International Filter Co. v. Conroe Gin, Ice & Light Co.

Back 28

Filter gives proposal to Conroe. Conroe sends back “acceptance”. Filter president says okay. Filter sends acknowledgment, Conroe countermands.Holding: Conroe’s “acceptance” was actually the offer, which Filter accepted when the president said okay and they sent acknowledgment.

Front 29

White v. Corlies & Tift

Back 29

D gives specifications, P gives estimate, D makes changes, P assents, D says “upon agreement you can begin at once”, P buys lumber and starts work, D countermandsHolding: no communication of acceptance so D is able to countermand

Front 30

Ever-tite Roofing Corporation v. Green

Back 30

D makes offer, P can accept by written acceptance or performance, D says there was no written acceptance so they stopped before actual performanceHolding: Performance commenced when P loaded trucks, and therefore, D cannot countermand

Front 31

Corinthian Pharmaceutical Systems, Inc. v. Lederle Laboratories

Back 31

D wrote an internal letter about a price change then sent a letter later to customers, P heard and ordered at cheaper price, tracking number was issued, D send partial order at lower price stating the rest would be at higher price unless cancelledHolding: The order was an offer and the tracking number is not acceptance so no contract to sue for specific performance. Partial shipment was not acceptance, was notification of accommodation.

Front 32

Dickinson v. Dodds

Back 32

D agreed to sell property to P if he agreed by a certain time. P heard D was going to sell to someone else. P tried to notify D he would buy. D had already sold to someone else before that time.Holding: There was no consideration in a promise to forbear form offering the land to someone else.

Front 33

Drennan v. Star Paving Co.

Back 33

P was making a bid on a job that required subcontractors. D bid as a subcontractor. P made his bid based on D’s bid. D tried to revoke.Holding: D’s bid was an offer and P’s bid was an acceptance although P did not notify D. P relied on D’s bid which was an implied promise.

Front 34

Dorton v. Collins

Back 34

Carpet mart brought suit because quality of carpets are not what they contracted for and they received complaints. There was an arbitration clause in the small print on the back of the sales form.Holding: Not a binding arbitration clause under UCC 2-207(3) because materially altered the contract and not expressly agreed to

Front 35

Bayway Refining Co. v. Oxygenated Marketing and Trading

Back 35

OMT offered to buy 60k barrels of MTBE from Bayway, Bayway’s acceptance contained a tax clause requiring buyer to pay various taxesHolding: The tax clause is part of the contract because OMT raised no issue of hardship and the court therefore looked to industry custom based on UCC 2-207(2)(b)

Front 36

Step Saver Data System v. Wyse Tech

Back 36

SS places order. TSL promises to send foods. SS sends purchase order. TSL sends shipping invoice. There is a box top license. SS opens boxed and uses/resells items.Holding: The box top should have been treated as written confirmation containing additional terms and, because it would have materially altered the agreement, the terms did not become part of the agreement

Front 37

Hill v. Gateway 200 Inc.

Back 37

Arbitration clause in boiler plate contract, P tries to return computer after 30 days because of problem, P sues, D says no because arbitration clauseHolding: Due to rolling acceptance, the acceptance started when P ordered computer over phone. Not practical or efficient to give all terms over the phone. Arbitration clause stands.

Front 38

Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores

Back 38

P is looking to get a supermarket franchise. After lengthy negotiation, told he can get for 34k, including 13k loan form father in law. Falls through.Holding: Court finds for P based on reliance, pretty much jumping to the compensation to avoid injustice prong

Front 39

Dixon v. Wells Fargo

Back 39

P has mortgage through D and discussed payment modification. D told P to default on payments and asked for a bunch of info that P provided. P is notified that D is foreclosing.Holding: Court finds for P based on reliance. The promise was to be considered for modification.

Front 40

Channel Home Centers, Division of Grace Corp. v. Grossman

Back 40

P entered negotiations to lease from D and per letter of intent D would take property off the market. D continued to negotiate with another and withdrew from negotiations with P.Holding: Court finds a separate agreement inside negotiations including intent to be bound, definite terms, and consideration.

Front 41

Toys, Inc. v. F.M. Burlington Company

Back 41

P was in contract with D for leasing space at mall. The agreement allowed extension of agreement for more time at the rate at that time in the mall. Disagreement about rate and D doesn’t offer as a result.Holding: Uphold summary judgment for P. Court disagrees with D’s assertion that “prevailing rate” is indefinite.

Front 42

Oglebay Norton Co. v. Armco, Inc.

Back 42

Renegotiating a long-term contract and Armco wants out based on indefiniteness. Holding: Order specific performance. Court determines rate. Says if future disagreements, will appoint a mediator.

Front 43

C.R. Klewin, Inc. v. Flagship Properties, Inc.

Back 43

Deal made for construction of buildings on a handshake. D argues the project cannot be performed within a year, wasn’t written down, and is therefore unenforceableHolding: nothing in contract says it will take over a year so one-year rule does not apply.

Front 44

Central Ceilings, Inc. v. National Amusements, Inc.

Back 44

P is subcontractor doing work for prim contractor hired by D. P asked D to promise payment. D agrees. Never written down. Holding: Court finds for P due to Main Purpose Doctrine.

Front 45

St. Ansgar Mills, Inc. v. Streit

Back 45

Long term contract for sale of corn. P relies on purchase D makes, both thinking price will go up. D backs out claiming statute of frauds and P sues for expectation damages.Holding: SJ was not appropriate based on P not being a merchant under UCC 2-201(2)—P was close enough to a merchant so send to jury for question of reasonable time.

Front 46

Ortelere v. Teachers’ Retirement Bd.

Back 46

Grace had mental breakdown and diagnosed with various medical conditions. She takes out monthly max from retirement and as a result leaves nothing to husband after death. Dies soon after.Holding: Board should have known why Grace left work and she was not capable of making this decision so the new agreement doesn’t stand

Front 47

Cundick v. Broadbent

Back 47

Cundick sold property for half market value. Wife was involved. Agreement was redrafted to increase what he received. Attorney was consulted. Cundick suffered a mental illness.Holding: Court holds for D because there was no way to know of Cundick’s mental illness and multiple people were involved.

Front 48

Kenai Chrysler Center, Inc. v. Denison

Back 48

Developmentally disabled young adult buys car with debit card, parents argue contract is void because of guardianship.Holding: Legal guardianship provides constructive notice of disability and therefore hold for Denison

Front 49

Alaska Packers’ Ass’n v. Domenico

Back 49

Workers who agreed to work for $50 collectively said, while working in a remote location, they wouldn’t work unless increased to $100. Superintendent agreed but company didn’t pay.Holding: Duress exercised by workers, held for company.

Front 50

Watkins & Son v. Carrig

Back 50

Contract to excavate for money, rock found, homeowner agreed to pay 9x the original rate to remove rock, then claims there was a preexisting dutyHolding: Court finds for Watkins; the homeowner had other options so no duress.

Front 51

Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corporation

Back 51

D contracted with Navy, subcontracted with P for some parts, for next batch P bid on all parts and said would only fulfill first contract is D agreed to pay higher amount and contract for all parts in second batch, D agrees then doesn’t pay.Holding: Court held for D because there was a government contract and could not ask for extension, no other option

Front 52

Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School District

Back 52

P charged with criminal homosexual activity. P was teacher. Principal and superintendent went to P, recommended he resign, and said if not they would publicize what happened.Holding: Not duress because threat was legal but yes undue influence

Front 53

Swinton v. Whitinsville Sav. Bank

Back 53

D sold house to P that was infested with termites. D knew but did not reveal the true condition to P.Holding: D did not lie. Bare non-disclosure is okay—no affirmative duty to disclose.

Front 54

Kannavos v. Anino

Back 54

D bought a house and converted to multifamily dwelling without proper permits, P bought with intention of renting apartments, city intervenesHolding: Court finds for P. Ads emphasized the apartment building and property was presented that way. Misrepresentation.

Front 55

Speakers of Sport v. ProServ

Back 55

Rodriguez was an agent of P. D promised to get him 2-4M and failed after he signed with them. Rodriguez signed with another agency. P brings action for promissory fraud.Holding: Court finds for D because did not promise to pay the amount, best offer was to try to get endorsements in the amount—want to preserve competition

Front 56

Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc.

Back 56

P was widow who wanted to be an accomplished dancer, was told excellent dancer and was sold dance lessons and courses totaling over 31k. P sued.Holding: Court found for P, saying D was in a position of superior knowledge so the opinion in effect became fact.

Front 57

Gianni v. R. Russel & Co.

Back 57

P had a store in an area he rented, used to sell tobacco, new lease said no tobacco, P claims oral agreement he alone would sell soda, not in written agreement.Holding: Court says contract appears complete on its face, and is thus integrated, and it would be natural to see the agreement about soda in the contract, so finds for D.

Front 58

Masterson v. Sine

Back 58

P owned a ranch, conveyed to D with option for P to purchase, P goes bankrupt, trustee tries to take property due to bankruptcy, disagreement regarding verbal communication to keep in the familyHolding: The extrinsic evidence should be heard in court to determine if it would be excluded by parol evidence rule—contract viewed as partially integrated

Front 59

Bollinger v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry Stripping and Construction Co.

Back 59

P agreed to let D put construction waste from excavation on his property. P said waste should be sandwiched with topsoil on top (oral). D sandwiched at first but then stopped. P seeks specific performance.Holding: Specific performance affirmed because prior actions show the agreement for sandwiching was discussed.

Front 60

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.

Back 60

D entered contract to repair cover for a turbine, D agreed to perform work at own cost and expense and to get insurance, while working the cover fell damaging the turbine. Indemnity provision unclear whether covers property owned by P. Dispute over “all loss”Holding: Should allow extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning of “all loss”

Front 61

Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.

Back 61

Group led by P signed with D. P married Spektor. In divorce agreement general release to release all past and future claims and obligations. D later capitalizes on resurgence of 60s music. Key term: “All recordings...by any method now or hereafter known.”Holding: Court applies NY rule to original contract giving ownership rights to agency and CA rule for divorce settlement. P entitled to damages

Front 62

Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp.

Back 62

Sales contract where meaning of the word “chicken” is unclear. Extrinsic evidence presented by both parties including price comparisons, language comparisons, and exert testimonyHolding: Based on objective standard, P failed to show chicken was used in narrower sense. Court seemed to turn on price testimony.

Front 63

Hurst v. W.J. Lake & Co.

Back 63

Contract to pay $50/ton for horsemeat having over 50% protein and $45/ton if less than 50%. D paid $45/ton for 140 tons that contained 49.53-49.96%. P sues. Term in question is “50%”Holding: Held for P. No plain meaning found so used extrinsic evidence to find 50% included anything over 49.5%.

Front 64

Nanaluki Paving & Rock Co. v. Shell Oil Co.

Back 64

Dispute regarding whether price protection will apply for an asphaltic paving company. P argues course of performance and usage of tradeHolding: Court finds it was okay to apply trade usage and course of performance (would likely be different if no history between parties)

Front 65

Raffles v. Wichelhaus

Back 65

P sending cotton on Peerless. Two ships named Peerless. D thought would be on earlier ship. D refused to pay when cam on second ship. Interpreting “Peerless”Holding: D prevails—no contract due to latent ambiguities and no consensus between the parties

Front 66

Oswald v. Allen

Back 66

P is coin collector. D has Swiss Collection containing all Swiss coins and Rarity Collection containing Swiss and other coins. Term in question is “Swiss coins” (Swiss collection vs. all Swiss coins)Holding: No contract existed. If one ha been aware of other’s misunderstanding, that misunderstanding would govern. Here, no misunderstanding.

Front 67

Koken v. Black & Veatch Construction, Inc.

Back 67

Construction project and uses fire blanket to protect an area beneath welding. Fire started and put out by extinguisher, but chemicals caused damageHolding: Objectively, the fire blanket did what a reasonable person would think it would do so no breach of implied warranty.

Front 68

Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.

Back 68

P’s wife bought car. Ten days later the steering mechanism failed. Sued for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Contract had fine print limiting warranty.Holding: Seller did not bring attention to limit. Breach of contract.

Front 69

McKinnon v. Benedict

Back 69

P owned property enclosing land D bought for camp. P loaned D 5k and promised to help get business in exchange for promise not to cut down trees. P didn’t help; D began cutting trees. P sues for injunctive relief.Holding: Bar P’s injunctive relief due to gross inadequacy of consideration. Considered P’s superior status and request for injunctive relief.

Front 70

Tuckwiller v. Tuckwiller

Back 70

P left job to care for aunt in exchange for aunt willing farm to P. Aunt died soon after without executing will but had EMTs witness signing farm over. Claim that not valid consideration.Holding: Rule in favor of P because ex ante, P had higher level of risk

Front 71

Black Industries, Inc. v. Bush

Back 71

During Korean conflict, P was middleman between D and another company contracted by government. High profits involved. Typically if middleman involved with government contract, large profits not allowed.Holding: Long contract chain and government not in privity with any party. Court follows R2K 79 and doesn’t police consideration.

Front 72

O’Callaghan v. Waller & Beckwith Realty Co.

Back 72

P was tenant injured when she fell while crossing paved courtyard. Exculpatory clause relieved D form damages, including negligent harm.Holding: Contract stands based on law and economics arguments. Preserve freedom of contract.

Front 73

Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.

Back 73

P was a concert promoter who contracted with D who was representing an artist. Contract was identical standard form to that used through the industry. Contract had clause for arbitration by union’s international executive board.Holding: Cannot enforce based on unconscionability because arbitrator designated by union and presumptively biased in favor of one party

Front 74

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

Back 74

Furniture company provided credit. Contract said payments allocated to all outstanding balances—split. Contract said default allows recovery of anything with a balance.Holding: Terms unreasonable and lack of meaningful choice because of positioning of the store and predatory nature. Biggest problems are dragnet clause and pro rata clause.

Front 75

Dalton v. Educational Testing Service

Back 75

P took SAT 2x. First time was ill. Scored 410 points higher. Agreement was signed giving D right to cancel scores if belief of cheating. P was given options.Holding: D is required to act in good faith. Standard for good faith is doing bare minimum of what contract says, which would be to look at the evidence P presented. P is allowed relief.

Front 76

Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Corp

Back 76

P was rep for small brewery and D was larger brewer. D promised best efforts to promote beer and a royalty for barrels sold. D had financial problems and cut advertising across the board.Holding: Court held for P because doing something just to reduce loss of profits does not constitute best efforts.

Front 77

Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc.

Back 77

Business sold that sells jewelry and drug paraphernalia. Buyer of business failed to pay on notes.Holding: Court says contrary to public policy. Laws against marijuana and therefore implication that manufacturing paraphernalia would not be enforced.

Front 78

X.L.O. Concrete Corp. v. Rivergate Corp

Back 78

P is cement company. Cement governed by mafia. P subcontracted by D and D refused to pay because would be condoning mafia business.Holding: Contract upheld. Does not directly violate antitrust laws. D knew P’s history prior to entering into contract. No sympathy.

Front 79

Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods

Back 79

P was quality control director. Violation of safety and mislabeling regarding quality. Fired after notifying D.Holding: Court finds for P. Cannot force someone to choose between keeping job and breaking law. Public policy supports food safety.

Front 80

Bella v. Gambro, Inc.

Back 80

P was in house attorney for D. D did not reject substandard dialysis machines per P’s recommendation. P reported. D fired P.Holding: An attorney does not have grounds for false termination

Front 81

Simeone v. Simeone

Back 81

D presented P with prenup night of wedding limiting max payment. Discussed before. P signed without legal counsel. Divorce after 6-7 years.Holding: Court upholds prenup because parties discussed beforehand. No duress. Focus on gender equality.

Front 82

Jacob & Young v. Kent

Back 82

JY hired to build a house. Type of piping specified. Used wrong piping by mistake, but same quality. K sued for breach because of wrong piping.Holding: Court looks to difference in value and does not find for K. Concerned with economic waste.

Front 83

Plante v. Jacobs

Back 83

P contracted D for furnish materials and construct a house. Did not pay in full because wall was misplaced and other small errors.Holding: Court applied diminished value rule for wall and cost of remedying for small defects. No diminished value for wall. Concerned with economic waste.

Front 84

Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.

Back 84

P leased to D to strip mine coal. D agreed to perform specified restorative and remedial work. Did not restore and remediate.Holding: Reduce damages to $300 which is the difference in value. Would cost $29K to remedy. Focus on economic waste.

Front 85

Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

Back 85

P was hired for lead role and would have approval over director, dance director, and screen play. Movie not produced. D offered a role in western when original was musical.Holding: Uphold award of salary for first film. Refusal of inferior offer cannot be used for mitigation.

Front 86

Hadley v. Baxendale

Back 86

P operated mill. Sent old broken shaft as model for new shaft. Did not inform needed shaft to operate. P sued D for delivering shaft late.Holding: D did not know P couldn’t open. Damages limited to what is foreseeable.

Front 87

Fera v. Village Plaza Inc.

Back 87

P tried to lease, fell through, suit for lost profitsHolding: Allow damages base don expert testimony even though for lost profits

Front 88

Dave Gustafson & Co. v. State

Back 88

P surfaced highway. Delayed opening 67 days. Contract provided graduated scale of liquidated damages per day.Holding: Court upholds. Enforceable because we don’t know actual loss and parties agreed ahead of time.