Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
59 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Cohen v. Cowles Media
|
Moral Obligation will not itself create a contract. (Newspaper reporter promise of confidentiality to a source was not binding).
|
|
|
Kiljarian v. Vastola
|
Suit involving material breach of the sale of real property. (seller fell ill). Court would not award specific perfromance becasue of the injustice it would casue.
|
|
|
Pass v. Shelby Aviation
|
Used the predominate purpose test to determine the purchase of parts was incidental to the services and UCC would not apply
|
|
|
Kabil Developments v. Mignot
|
(Helicopter Deal) Subjective evidence can be admitted to supplement the objective evidence of their negotiations
|
|
|
James v. McDonalds
|
People have a duty to read their contracts. If you do not read the contract you take the risk the unread terms are unwanted
|
|
|
Lucy v. Zehmer
|
A contract is enforceable despite one party's subjective belief that the parties are joking. A person can not setup that he was merely jesting when his actions and words would make a reasonable person believe that they intended a real agreement
|
|
|
Fletcher-Harlee Corp v. Pote Concrete Contractors
|
(P solicited bid from subs requesting they stay open 60 days, D submitted offer to remain with language that it was firm offer, and refused to honor price). No Offer, No acceptance, No Contract.
|
|
|
Leonard v. Pepsico & Lefkowitz v. Greater Minneapolis Store
|
Advertisements are not offers. The exception is when the advertisement is clear definite, explicit, and leaves nothing up for negotiation, it creates an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract
|
|
|
Keller v Bones
|
(real estate contract, signing of the contract occurred before the time lapse but communicated it to seller 12 mins after deadline) Court held a contract that is clear and unambiguous is not subject to interpretation, the contract only said the sellers had to sign it by a certain time, which they did.
|
|
|
Roth v. Malson
|
Contract for land. Buyer signed in the section labeld counteroffer,although he resated the terms of the offer and they were not different, ourt held that on its face it was a counter offer becasue that is where he signed.
|
|
|
Cohen v. Cowles Media
|
Moral Obligation will not itself create a contract. (Newspaper reporter promise of confidentiality to a source was not binding).
|
|
|
Kiljarian v. Vastola
|
Suit involving material breach of the sale of real property. (seller fell ill). Court would not award specific perfromance becasue of the injustice it would casue.
|
|
|
Pass v. Shelby Aviation
|
Used the predominate purpose test to determine the purchase of parts was incidental to the services and UCC would not apply
|
|
|
Kabil Developments v. Mignot
|
(Helicopter Deal) Subjective evidence can be admitted to supplement the objective evidence of their negotiations
|
|
|
James v. McDonalds
|
People have a duty to read their contracts. If you do not read the contract you take the risk the unread terms are unwanted
|
|
|
Lucy v. Zehmer
|
A contract is enforceable despite one party's subjective belief that the parties are joking. A person can not setup that he was merely jesting when his actions and words would make a reasonable person believe that they intended a real agreement
|
|
|
Fletcher-Harlee Corp v. Pote Concrete Contractors
|
(P solicited bid from subs requesting they stay open 60 days, D submitted offer to remain with language that it was firm offer, and refused to honor price). No Offer, No acceptance, No Contract.
|
|
|
Leonard v. Pepsico & Lefkowitz v. Greater Minneapolis Store
|
Advertisements are not offers. The exception is when the advertisement is clear definite, explicit, and leaves nothing up for negotiation, it creates an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract
|
|
|
Keller v Bones
|
(real estate contract, signing of the contract occurred before the time lapse but communicated it to seller 12 mins after deadline) Court held a contract that is clear and unambiguous is not subject to interpretation, the contract only said the sellers had to sign it by a certain time, which they did.
|
|
|
Roth v. Malson
|
Contract for land. Buyer signed in the section labeld counteroffer,although he resated the terms of the offer and they were not different, ourt held that on its face it was a counter offer becasue that is where he signed.
|
|
|
Glover v. Jewish War Veterans of United Sates
|
It is impossible to assent to a contract if you do not even know the offer exists (Reward could not be given to someone who gave information not knowing there was a reward for such information
|
|
|
Vaskie v West American
|
What is a reasonable amount of time is a fact question. It is up to the parties to determine the terms of offers not the courts. (car accident settlement, q of when the offer expired)
|
|
|
Hendricks v Behee
|
(seller withdrew his offer before the buyers acceptance was communicated) There is not contract until an acceptance is communicated to the offeror
|
|
|
Dickinson v. Dodds
|
(buyer heard from 3rd party that seller wanted to sell to someone else) There must be consideration for an offer to be held open to an offeree. The offer was dead when Dodds discovered Dickinson had offered the house to someone else.
|
|
|
Carill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball
|
Ad with promise to pay 100pounds to anyone who used the product as directed contracted the flu, ad was not a mere puff becasue it actually said "in sincerety." Contracting the flu was a condition that had to be fulfilled
|
|
|
Alaska Packers Association v. Domenico
|
The amended employment contracts were invlaid becasue they lacked consideration, the fisherman were not obligated to do anything more than what was required in the origial contract that would have justified the pay increase.
|
|
|
Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. Deleo
|
Delo promised congregation $25k on deathbead, estate would not honor the promise. There was no consideration for the promise, no beneift to the promisory nor detriment to the promisee. Enforcement of such a promise is against public policy.
|
|
|
Hammer v. Sidway
|
Forbearance to do something one has the leagl right to do is sufficient to constitute consideration. (Uncle promises nephew money if he refrained from drinking, swearing, using tabacco, cards, ect. until he turned 21).
|
|
|
Carlises v. T&R Excavating
|
(wife and soon to be ex contracted for scaffolding work on her school). Reimbursment for materials was a condition on the promise not consideration, past secretarial work did not constitute as consideration. Agreement was a gratuitous promise.
|
|
|
Kessler v. National Presto Industries
|
(Pressure cooker case, p signed a relaease of all claims). The court does not examine the adequacy of consideration unless it is enough to "shock the conscience"
|
|
|
White v. Village of Homewood
|
A preexisting legal duty is not consideration. (Town had preexisting duty to allow people to take the fitness test, and they had a legal right to take the test).
|
|
|
Fiege v. Bohem
|
Forbearance from asserting a good faith legal claim constitutes consideration so long as you in good faith believe you have a valid claim
|
|
|
In Re: C&H News Company
|
(Deceased emplyee signed handbook that required aritration, but also stated that the employer had the right to change the terms of the handbook with or without notice to employee) The unilateral right for one part to amend a contract renders the agreemen unenforcable. It is an illusory promise. No mutuality of obligation=no contract.
|
|
|
Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
|
P'a implied promise of good faith to market D's designs for which he had exclusive rights to created a mutuallity of obligation (consideration) which supported the contract.
|
|
|
Pro CD v. Zeidenberg
|
(telephoone directory, one price for business and one for consumers, d bought consumer cd and used for business) a buyer who is presented with additional terms and offered an opportunity to reject and return the goods, subsequently does not reject, the buyer will have accepted the terms,
|
|
|
Arizona Cartridge (ACRA) v. Lexmark
|
(prebate program, terms on the box) The contract is enforceable becasue the customers have notice of the condition, have a chance to reject, and receive consideration in the form of a reduced price in exchange forthe limits placed on the cartridge.
|
|
|
Specht v, Netscape
|
Downloading the software did not mean the user assented to the terms and conditions(arbitration agreement) the terms were not in a spot that the reasonably prudent internet user would have noticed.
|
|
|
Lively v. Ijam
|
(phone purchase of a computer that malfunctioned, additional terms received on invoice after purchase) The contract existed at the purchase, the additional terms were not accepted just becasue he kept the computer.
|
|
|
Wachter Management v. Dexter & Chaney
|
P & D negotiated terms of the contract, the licensing agreement that came after were proposals for additions to the contract which were not consented to. The forum selection clause is not enforceable
|
|
|
Norkunas v. Cochran
|
Letter of intent to buys was an agreement to agree in the future, not a binding commitment
|
|
|
Arbitron v. Tralyn
|
Escalation clause in the contract was enforceable even though there was not a set price, the clasue did sepcify who was to determine the price.
|
|
|
B. Lewis v. Angelou
|
Agreement was interpreted that each party had a duty of good faith and reasonable efforts. Similar to Lucy, Lady Duff Gordon
|
|
|
Baer v. Chase
|
(sopranos case) A contract is unenforceable for vagueness when the terms are to indefinite to allow a court to determine with certainty what each party has promised to do.
|
|
|
Family Snacks v. Prepco
|
A contract is still enforceable if one or more terms are left open. UCC2-311 provides the assortment of goods are at the buyers option. Buyer must request the goods first then the seller provides the estimate.
|
|
|
C.R. Klewin v. Flagship Properties
|
Statute of Frauds case, Contract to complete construction, Expected completion time for a contract does not matter, a contract must state specifically that it can not be completed within one year in order for it to fall within the statute of frauds.
|
|
|
Drennan v. Star Paving
|
Contractor/Subcontractor case mistake in subcontracotrs bid. A promise which the promisory should reasonablt ecpect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice could be avoided only by enforcing the promise. Subs bid induced contractor, used the bid in his bid, reliane occured, only way to remove injustice is by enforcement
|
|
|
East Providence Credit Union v. Geremia
|
P relied on credit unions promise to pay the insurance policy if they didnt, court found in favor of p
|
|
|
Garwood Packaging v. Allen & Company
|
(investment case) Garwood relied on Allen but their reliance was not reasonable, their actions were calculated risks in hopes of the deal working out. Allens puffery "come hell or high water", was an aspiration.
|
|
|
Norton v. Mcosker
|
(mistriss relied on promise that boyfriend would take care of her for the rest of her life after prommising to leave his wife and marry her for 23 years) The promise to take care of her was too vague and her reliance was unreasonable due to her former boyfriends history of not following through on promises
|
|
|
Estate of Cleveland v. Gorden
|
Neice sought to be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses she paid taking care of her ill aunt. Court found she was not an officous intermeddler, and there was suffiicient evidence to show her help was not gratuitous, and payment was expected.
|
|
|
Martin v. Little Brown and Company
|
Law student volunteerd information to the publishing company that someone plagarized their work, Martin was a volunteer and did not request payment upfront
|
|
|
Sarvis v. Vermont State Colleges
|
A party induced into a contract by fraud or misrepresentation can rescind the contract and avoid any liability theron. P fraudlulently induced D into entering employment contracts. P misrepresented material facts in his resume, which induced them to employ him.
|
|
|
Stambovsky v. Ackley
|
(Haunted house case)Non-Disclosure constitutes a basis for recision as a matter of equity when a condition created by the seller which materially impairs the value of a contract within the knowledge of the seller and unlikely to be discovered by a prudent purchaser excersizing due care
|
|
|
Germantown Manufacturing v. Rawlinson
|
(embezzlement case, wife suprised when guy showed uo to sign papers) It is improper to threaten criminal prosecution to induce an embezzler or family to undertake to repay. Mrs. Rawlinson was under duress when signing the notes.
|
|
|
Austin Instrument v. Loral Corp.
|
(Navy Contracts) A k is voidable on grounds of duress when one party forces another to agree to contract amendement if the other shows that they have not choice and can not get the good eslewhere. (economic duress)
|
|
|
Danzig v. Danzig
|
(Lawyer referral case) General rule: contracts against public policy will not be enforced. Exception: one party is reasonably ignorant and did not know the contract was illegal
|
|
|
Stevens v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust
|
Non-Compete cluase was able to be severed from the contract. That clause violated the rules of professional contract. The rest of the contract could stand. (law office, lawyer left practice, portion of payout withheld for practicing at anther firm in Chicago).
|
|
|
Douglas v. Plfueger Hawai'i
|
It is not an absolute right for a minor to disafirm contracts. State legislatures provided tha under 18 could obtain employment. (arbitration clause thrown out for lack of consideration not his infancy)
|
|
|
Farnium v. Silvano
|
(90 yr old sold home under value to lawn guy who knew and was warned). a contract is voidab;e when entered into by a person who by reason of mental illness or defect a)is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction or b is unable in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences, and the other party has reason to know of the condition
|
