Contracts Ii Weeks 4-6

Front 1

Diversified Group v Sahn (Season tickets transferred illiegally)

Back 1

every contract after the first one, which was illegal, are illegal. Usually court stays out of and leaves you where you are, here the anti scalping law by legislature overides general "leave them where they stand"

Front 2

Danzing v Danzig (lawyer promises money for clients brought him)

Back 2

Both knew it was wrong but it was a SPECIALIZEd statute in state and ATTY should know better than him, usually illegal contracts you leave them where they stand but if equity breaks one way or public policy, exception

Front 3

Woodman v Kera (bday party and waiver of liability for child in Michigan)

Back 3

Michigan statute saying parent has no authority to waive childs rights, so court wont allow. Should be legislature that decides these things, more people weigh in, not just case by case looking at seperate facts.

Front 4

Syncom Industries, INC v. Wood (non compete clause, guy starting cleaning other movie theaters two weeks after resignation)

Back 4

Non compete clauses generally enforceable provided they are factually ok. Three pronged test used here and court actually revised contract, rare. Found that restrictive covenants by syncom were too broad and went above "protecting legitimate interest". -1 prong

Front 5

Three prongs court uses to see if restrictions of non compete clause should stand

Back 5

1 whether the restriction is greater than necessary to protect legintimate intererst of employer
2 whether restriction imposes undue hardship on employee
3 whether restriction is injurious to public interest

Front 6

Questions court in Syncom asked of the restrictive covenants when analyzing three prong test

Back 6

Soes it apply only to customers that employee has worked with in past? Any potential customers in service area? Special skills employees have? Can they get another job under these restrictions? Freeze out of areas now?
Cant do this for ATTY's, public interest forbids it.

Front 7

Misunderstanding in contracts

Back 7

When each party attaches different meanings to the language used to form the contract. so problematic that court can say no tru meaning so forget it, no meeting of minds.

Front 8

Mistake in contract week 5 2 12

Back 8

When