Case Briefs Midterm 2

Front 1

Lucy v. Zehmer (1954)

Back 1

Issue: Offer
Rule: The outward manifestation of present contractual intent to be bound by certain and definite terms communicated to the offeree.
Analysis: The contract was drafted twice to give provisions for both parties in the marriage and the examination of the property, including miscellaneous procedures as well.
Conclusion: Ruled in favor is Lucy to go through with the contract.

Front 2

Alexander v. Lafayette Crime Stoppers, Inc. (2010)

Back 2

Issue: (Acceptance)



Rule: Acceptance is received when it comes to the possession of a person authorized by the offeror to receive it, or when it is deposited in a place the offeror has indicated as the place where communications of that kind are to be deposited for him.



Analysis: Because the plaintiff had not notified the defendants of acceptance before to stated date, according to Louisianan law, acceptance was not established.



Conclusion: The judgement granting the defendants' motions for summary judgement is affirmed.

Front 3

Jacob & Youngs v. Kent (1921)

Back 3

Issue: If there was breach of contract.



Rule: An omission, both trivial and innocent, will sometimes be atoned for by allowance of the resulting damage, and will not always be the breach of a condition.



Analysis: Because a deviation was made in the contract, the additional cost of having the specific pipe installed to the house would be solely in the act of doing so, which is the plaintiff's legal right.



Conclusion: The court rules in favor of the plaintiff with the cost to be on both parties.

Front 4

Hamer v. Sidway (1891)

Back 4

Issue: (Consideration)



Rule: Abstention from a permissible legal conduct is sufficient consideration.



Analysis: The uncle did not benefit from the contract, though the nephew abstaining from legal conduct suffices as consideration.



Conclusion: The upper court rules in favor of Hamer.

Front 5

Facto v. Pantagis (2007)

Back 5

Issue: (Impracticability)



Rule: A contract is null if, by an act of god, the obligations of the contract become impractical or impossible to perform.



Analysis: The court decides that Pantagis was correct in not being able to perform, so they are relinquished of their obligations. At the same time, Facto is not obligated to perform on their end either.



Conclusion: Both parties are discharged of their obligatory performances, Facto is repaid.

Front 6

Krell v. Henry (1903)

Back 6

Issue: (Frustration of Purpose)



Rule: A contract's purpose may be inferred to by surrounding circumstances. If an unforeseen event frustrates the purpose of a contract, given that the purpose is within contemplation of both parties, performance will be excused.



Analysis: Though it was not expressly stated, it was implied that he was renting the flat to watch the coronation. Because this is now impossible, it is reasonable for the contract to be void.



Conclusion: Judgement for Henry was affirmed.

Front 7

Merry Homes, Inc. v. Chi Hung Luu (2010)

Back 7

Issue: (Impracticability)



Rule: The act makes the contractual obligation impractical or impossible, potentially making the contract null.



Analysis: Because performing the contract was not legal, the contract was then impracticable.



Conclusion: The Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgement. The lease was void and unenforceable because it could not be performed without violating the law.