Ks- Cases #1

Front 1

Hurley v. Eddingfield

Back 1

1901 (P dying; D-Dr refuses to treat)

Individuals have the right to freely enter into, or avoid forming, Ks.

Front 2

Jackson v. Seymour

Back 2

1952 (D buys land w/ timber from P)

Constructive fraud may be inferred from the intrinsic nature and subject of a bargain.

Factors for possible constr. fraud:
- Confidential rel. b/w parties
- Reliance of 1 party on other
- Gross inadequacy of price

Front 3

Hamer v. Sidway

Back 3

1891 (uncle -> $5k to N to be good; sec. sold to P, & D is exec. of U's estate)

Refraining from something that one's entitled to do is suff. detr. for creating an enf. K.

Front 4

Dougherty v. Salt

Back 4

1919 (8yr-old given $k prom. nt. by aunt)

Mere recital of acts won't nec. be consid.
Past acts *cannot* be consid. for K presently formed.

Front 5

Langer v. Superior Steel Corp.

Back 5

1932 (P prom. $100/mo pension; stops after 4yrs)

Valid consid. exists when one refrains from something one has legal rt. to do, e.g. not work for competing firms.

Front 6

Fiege v. Boehm

Back 6

1956 (unwed mom prom. $ from presumed dad; later blood tests = not the daddy)

- Forbearance of prosecution can const. consid.
- Consid. based on a premise later proven untrue can still make for a binding K, under conditions where:
- Promise made in good faith.
- (Not frivolous)

Front 7

USA v. Meadors

Back 7

1985 (D signed guaranty on K w/ Small Business Administration when not asked to do so; then, SBA sues D after D's hubby's company's bankruptcy)

- Where there's no consid., there's no bargain.
- Consid. not given by person signing K when their signature isn't req. to make bargain happen.

Front 8

McMichael v. Price

Back 8

1936 (P's start-up biz going to buy sand excl. from D; D later renegs, fails to supply)

Prom. to buy excl. is valid consid. for a K where seller must prov. enough inv. for buyer.
- So long as deal's made in good faith.

Front 9

Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon

Back 9

1917 (P-agent empl. to promote D's brand & give her 1/2 $$)

An implied promise serves as adequate consideration for a bargain, making for an enforceable K.

Front 10

Restatement 2nd,

Section 205

Back 10

RULES ON GOOD-FAITH BARGAINING
- Bad faith if A interferes/refuses to cooperate w/ B's perf.
- G.F. may req. refr. from B.F. acts; sometimes reqs. affirm. action by 1 party.
- No G.F. where clause is explicit.
- When ct. wants to turn "indef => definite," ct. will look to "trade usage" or the "course of dealing b/w parties".

Front 11

Omni Group, Inc. v. Seattle-First National Bank

Back 11

1982 (P-real estate dev., agrees to buy Clarks' land; K reqs. P do 'feas. rpt' & find it satisf.; P skips rpt; D-Bank (exec. for C) args. no K exists)

Just b/c a prom., given for a prom., is dep. upon a cond., that does not nec. render the prom. invalid as consid.
- E.g. boilerplate / industry-std language of 'feas. rpt' here.

Front 12

Levin v. Blumenthal

Back 12

1936 (D got 2yr lease from P; at end of y1, D says they can't meet rent pmt & P lowers; suit on last rent pmt and diff. b/w paid & owed)

Prom. to do what promisor is already leg. bound to do is *not* consid.
- Any consid, however insign., given for the K-mod can satisfy this req., making mod binding.

Front 13

UCC 2-209

Back 13

For sales of goods, an agreement to modify a contract needs no consid. to be binding, so long as everything else checks out.

Front 14

Glenn v. Savage

Back 14

1887 (P saw D's bldg. mats. fall into river & saved them at P's cost; D refused to pay P)

A person benefiting from vol. service can't be liable unless:
a. He req. the perf. of the service, OR
b. After he knew of the service, he prom. to pay for it.

Front 15

Cotnam v. Wisdom

Back 15

1907 (P-Wis & other dr. try & fail to save D's life)

Ks implied by law, resting on "plain legal obligation, and... right", can bind indvs. and req. relief for parties.

Front 16

Mills v. Wyman

Back 16

1825 (D's sailor son ill, cared for by P; D prom. to pay P for care, but later changed mind)

In cases where, at some time or other, a good or valuable consid. has existed, moral obligation is a suff. consid. for an express prom.

**This is a LIMIT on moral obligs. => express proms.

Front 17

Webb v. McGowin

Back 17

1935 (P saved D's life & was prom. rest. for P's own injs.)

Where promisee (cares for / improves / preserves) the prop. of the promisor, though done w/o his req., it is suff. consid. for the promisor's subseq. agrmt to pay for the service, b/c of the mat. benefit rec.

**This has been very rarely been cited in other ct. cases.

Front 18

Ricketts v. Scothorn

Back 18

1898 (P prom. $2k by Gpa & P quits job in rel.; exec. D ref. to pay b/c no consid.)

- Equitable Estoppel (since PE doesn't yet form. exist)

"When the payee changes his position to his disadv. in rel. on the promise, a rt of action does arise."

Front 19

Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co.

Back 19

1959 (P prom. by BoD $200/mo when she rets.; after some years new prz says they're just grats & lowers to $100, then stops pmts)

A gratuitous prom. is enf. if promisee justif. rel. on the prom.

Front 20

Forrer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Back 20

1967 (P sold farm @ loss to work for D; fired w/o cause after 4mo)

A K for perm./life emplmt => an indef. general hiring, terminable at the will of either party w/ no breach for lack of cause.

Front 21

Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.

Back 21

1981 (P hired by D so he quits 1 job & turns down another; D disch. P before 1st day of work)

Emplyrs hold G.F. resp. to provide opp. for recently-hired emplees to perf. to satisf. of emplyr.

Front 22

Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.

Back 22

1965 (P sold bizs & home, moved fam. to open D licensee; D changed terms mult. times & P forced to step away)

Remedies may be available thru P.E. if in negot. for a K 1 side takes adv. of other side in inducing rel.

Front 23

Holland v. Morse Diesel International

Back 23

2001 (P, unlic. Ker, compl. 2x to D about racism; D then ref. to pay P for work)

Status as unlic. Ker can't foreclose civil rts claims, though it may lim. dams.

Front 24

Halbman v. Lemke

Back 24

1980 (P-minor paid $1k cash w/ $25/mo for D's car; car dies)

A minor who disaffirms a K for the purch. of an item may reclaim his purch. price w/o liab. for use, depr., dam., or other dim. in value, IF:
- Item isn't a necessity
- No misrepresentation
- No tortious dam. to prop.

Front 25

Restatement 2nd, §86

Back 25

--- Promises for Benefits Prev. Received:

1. A prom. made in recog. of a benefit prev. received by the promisor from the promisee is binding to the extent nec. to prev. injus.
2. A prom. isn't binding under (1)...
a. If the promisee conferred the benefit as a gift or for other reasons the promisor hasn't been unjustly enriched; OR
b. To the extent that its value is disproportionate to the benefit.

Front 26

Restatement 2nd, §90

Back 26

--- Rules of Promissory Estoppel

A prom. (which promisor should reas. expect to induce action/forbearance on the part of the promisee / 3rd-party, and which actually induces as such) is binding if injust. can be avoided only by enf. of the prom.

Remedy granted for breach may be lim. as just. reqs.