Contracts Ii Midterm

Front 1

McKinnon v. Benedict, 157 N.W.2d 665 (Wis. 1968)

Back 1

The inadequacy of consideration can be found to be so gross as to be unconscionable and a bar to injunctive relief.

Front 2

Tuckwiller v. Tuckwiller, 413 S.W.2d 274 (Mo. 1967)

Back 2

Determination of inequitability or unconscionability of a contract must be viewed prospectively, not retrospectively.

Front 3

Black Industries, Inc. v. Bush, 110 F.Supp. 801 (D.N.J. 1953)

Back 3

High profit for a middleman alone does not render a contract void as against public policy, when neither party deals directly with the United States, and when neither party contemplates corruption, collusion, or criminality.

Front 4

O’Callaghan v. Waller & Beckwith Realty Co., 155 N.E.2d 545 (Ill. 1958)

Back 4

When it is (a) not against the settled public policy of the jurisdiction or (b) not called for by a special relationship between the parties, an exculpatory clause relieving a party from his own negligence may be enforced.

Front 5

Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc., 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 (1981)

Back 5

Adhesion contracts are not always unenforceable.

Front 6

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991)

Back 6

A non negotiated forum-selection clause in a form ticket contract is not unenforceable simply because it is not the subject of bargaining

Front 7

Doe v. Great Expectations, 809 N.Y.S.2d 819 (N.Y.Civ. Ct., 2005)

Back 7

Statutory provisions may police terms of a contract and awardable damages.

Front 8

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (D.C.Cir, 1965)

Back 8

Where the element of unconscionability is present at the time a contract is made, the contract should not be enforced.

Front 9

Jones v. Star Credit Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 264 (N.Y. 1969)

Back 9

Not only a clause of the contract, but the contract in toto, may be found unconscionable as a matter of law

Front 10

Armendariz. v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000)

Back 10

Lack of mutuality in an employment agreement may be so egregious as to render the agreement unconscionable.

Front 11

Scott v. Cingular Wireless, 160 Wash.2d 843 (Wash. 2007)

Back 11

Precluding a class-action can work to entirely deny a remedy, rendering the agreement unconscionable.

Front 12

Dalton v. Educational Testing Service, 663 N.E.2d 289 (N.Y. 1995)

Back 12

Sometimes you have to go back and do what you said you were going to do.

Front 13

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 415 F.Supp. 429 (S.D.Fla. 1975)

Back 13

An established course of performance and dealing between parties which is also an established usage of trade becomes a part of the terms of the contract absent an explicit objection

Front 14

Market Street Assoc. v. Frey, 941 F.2d 588 (7th Cir. 1991)

Back 14

The requirement of good faith in performance does not require that one party alert the other to an unfavorable term in the contract.

Front 15

Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 601 F.2d 609 (2nd Cir. 1979)

Back 15

In a suit for breach of a "best efforts" clause, the performing party must show that there was nothing significant it could have done to perform that would not be financially disastrous.

Front 16

Lockewill, Inc. v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 547 F.2d 1024 (8th Cir. 1976)

Back 16

Where the term of an exclusivity agreement is not spelled out, the court may infer a reasonable time for the duration of the agreement.

Front 17

Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc., 247 Cal.Rptr. 340 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)

Back 17

In a contract for the sale of a business that is engaged in legal activity but whose products are used primarily for illegal purposes, the sale is unenforceable as against public policy.

Front 18

X.L.O. Concrete Corp. v. Rivergate Corp., 634 N.E.2d 158 (N.Y. 1994)

Back 18

A contract legal on its face and that does not require unlawful conduct in its performance is not voidable simply because it resulted from an antitrust conspiracy.

Front 19

Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, 861 P.2d 531 (Wyo. 1993)

Back 19

Non-compete agreements may be rendered reasonable and enforced as modified.

Front 20

Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, 179 A.2d 385 (Conn. 1980)

Back 20

There are exceptions to the general rule for termination of an at-will employee, when wrongful discharge contravening a public policy is implicated

Front 21

Balla v. Gambro, Inc., 584 N.E.2d 104 (Ill 1991)

Back 21

There is no such thing as a tort for retaliatory discharge for an attorney, including what would be for a lay-employee a wrongful discharge in contravention of public policy. Public policy in re: attorney-client relationship trumps public policy for public health & welfare when the attorney’s professional obligation would safeguard the health & welfare policy at any rate.

Front 22

Simeone v. Simeone, 581 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1990)

Back 22

Public policy does not preclude enforcement of a valid prenuptial agreement under the law of contract.

Front 23

In the Matter of Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227 (N.J. 1988)

Back 23

An illegal surrogate parenting agreement will not be enforced.

Front 24

Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz, 172 F.2d 80 (3rd Cir. 1949)

Back 24

When a contract is “carrying a good joke too far,” that is, when the sum total of its provisions drives too hard a bargain for a court of conscience to assist, specific performance will be denied.

Front 25

Klein v. PepsiCo., Inc., 845 F.2d 76 (4th Cir. 1988)

Back 25

UCC does not abrogate the common law maxim that specific performance is inappropriate where damages are recoverable and adequate.

Front 26

Morris v. Sparrow, 287 S.W.2d 583 (Ark. 1956)

Back 26

A specially-trained horse may be unique enough to warrant specific performance in its delivery under contract.

Front 27

Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co., 522 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1975)

Back 27

When certain equitable rules have been met and the contract is fair and plain, specific performance goes as a matter of right.

Front 28

Northern Delaware Industrial Development Corp. v. E.W. Bliss Co., 245 A.2d 431 (Del. Chauncery 1968)

Back 28

When a contract provision is imprecise and effective enforcement would be either impractical or impossible, a court may deny specific performance.

Front 29

Walgreen Co. v. Sara Creek Property Co., 966 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1992)

Back 29

Courts balance the respective costs and benefits in choosing between injunctive and legal remedies.

Front 30

Vitex Manufacturing Corp. v. Caribtex Corp., 377 F.2d 795 (3rd Cir. 1967)

Back 30

Overhead goes to gross profits and not seller’s costs in a calculation for damages from lost profits

Front 31

Laredo Hides Co., Inc. v. H&H Meat Products Co., Inc., 513 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. Civ. App 1974)

Back 31

When an injured party elects to cover for breach of a repudiated contract, prayer for general relief supports an award of all damages proven plus interest.

Front 32

R.E. Davis Chemical Corp. v. Diasonics, Inc., 826 F.2d 678 (7th Cir. 1987)

Back 32

A lost volume seller can claim damages for loss of profit calculated as described in UCC § 2-708(2)

Front 33

U.S. v. Algernon Blair, Inc., 479 F.2d 638 (4th Cir. 1973)

Back 33

Damages in quantum meruit support relief not only in the reliance interests, but also in restitution.

Front 34

Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co., 35 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1929)

Back 34

There is a duty to mitigate damages in contractu

Front 35

Tongish v. Thomas, 840 P.2d 471 (Kan. 1992)

Back 35

A remedy available to a jilted buyer, if he elects not to cover, is the difference between market price and contract price.

Front 36

Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 474 P.2d 689 (Cal. 1970)

Back 36

Example of how to compare alternative employment options when litigating a wrongful discharge case for damages.

Front 37

Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, 129 N.E. 889 (N.Y. 1921)

Back 37

In assessing damages in contract, courts balance considerations of justice with considerations of presumed intent in determining which promises are to be enforced.

Front 38

Groves v. John Wunder Co., 286 N.W. 235 (Minn. 1939)

Back 38

A just application of “cost of performance” rule versus “value” rule in damages for breach by resolving not to reward bad faith and willful breach of a material term.

Front 39

Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., 382 P.2d 109 (Okla. 1963)

Back 39

Poor application of “cost of performance” rule versus “value” rule in damages for breach by calling the term breached “incidental.”

Front 40

Hadley v. Baxendale, 156 Eng.Rep. 145 (Court of Exchequer 1854)

Back 40

Damages in contract should be limited to "incidental" damages, unless the buyer communicates special circumstances to make "consequential" damages reasonably foreseeable.

Front 41

Delchi Carrier Spa v. Rotorex Corp., 71 F.3d 1024 (2nd Cir. 1995)

Back 41

When nonconforming goods foreseeably lead to expenses to work-around the breach, these various consequential and incidental damages are legitimate and may be properly awarded

Front 42

Kenford Co. v. County of Erie, 537 N.E.2d 176 (N.Y. 1989)

Back 42

Absent evidence to support a finding that a party contemplated at the time of the contract to guarantee profits, lost appreciation in the value of property peripheral to donated property is not recoverable as foreseeable damages.

Front 43

Mieske v. Bartell Drug Co., 593 P.2d 1308 (Wash. 1979)

Back 43

Sentimental value is generally not recoverable in damages because it is too subjective to determine with enough precision to serve the purposes of justice.

Front 44

Fera v. Village Plaza, Inc., 242 N.W.2d 372 (Mich. 1976)

Back 44

Lost profits may be awarded to a new business which is prevented from starting due to a breach of contract.

Front 45

Wassermann’s Inc. v. Township of Middletown, 645 A.2d 100 (N.J. 1994)

Back 45

A liquidated damages clause designed to penalize breach, rather than to estimate probable actual damages is not enforceable.

Front 46

Dave Gustafson & Co. v. State, 156 N.W.2d 185 (S.D. 1968)

Back 46

A liquidated damages clause that fairly contemplates the effects of a breach will be enforced.