












































































Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A comprehensive introduction to remedies in contract law, covering key concepts such as expectancy, reliance, and restitution damages. It explores various types of contracts, including express, implied, and unilateral contracts, and examines the formation of contracts through case studies. The document also delves into the concept of repudiation and its implications for contract enforcement.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 84
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
R §1: a contract is “a promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes a duty” R § 2(1) “manifestation of intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified way, so made as to justify the recipient of the promise in understanding that a commitment has been made” Whether a contract is enforceable is determined at the time of exchange. UCC §1-201(3): “agreement” means the bargain of the parties in fact, as found in their language or inferred from other circumstances, including course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade UCC §1-201(12): “Contract” means the total legal obligation that results from the parties’ agreement as determined by the UCC as supplemented by any other applicable laws UCC §2-104: Merchants: fairly flexible definition; if someone represents that they have skill or knowledge then they will be considered a merchant by law UCC §2-105: Goods: all things which are movable at the time of the contract TYPES OF CONTRACTS
i. Cannot make her perform (contracts for personal services are not specifically enforceable can’t force people into personal relationships_ MUTUAL ASSENT
b. Holding – Lucy entitled to specific performance of agreement (Zehmer’s outward actions, when interpreted by a reasonable person, indicate willingness to be bound in his agreement to sell his farm to Lucy) i. Give words their objective, plain meaning unless evidence that parties intended otherwise ii. One cannot say he was merely joking when his conduct and words would warrant reasonable belief that a real agreement was intended (Reasonable person test)
a. Facts – D wishes to sell land in CA and puts it in an ad i. Sent P a form letter describing the land and one other letter stating he was negotiating with others b. Holding: ad was not an offer i. There was no price ii. Too indefinite iii. Offered to the world at large (multiple acceptance problem c. Rule of law: There can be no contract unless the minds of the parties have met and agreed upon some specific thing i. Whether a reasonable person in the position of the offeree would interpret this ad as an offer ii. The reasonable person wouldn’t have seen there’s an offer because D had sent back a letter saying it was not an offer and told P to hurry up cause there’s someone else interested iii. If promise knows or has reason to know the promisor doesn’t intend the offer as an expression of his fixed purpose until he has given a further expression of assent, the promisor hasn’t made an actual offer d. R § 24 Offer Defined e. R § 26 Preliminary Negotiations
e. R § 60 Acceptance of Offer Which States Place, Time or Manner of Acceptance – if an offer prescribes the place, time or manner of acceptance it’s terms must be complied with in order to create K Notification of Acceptance
iii. Opportunism – Corinthian found out about the price increase and tried to take advantage of a cheaper rate iv. It’s possible to have an acceptance that also operates as a breach which is valid under shipping non-conforming goods rules
d. R § 69(2): an offeree who does any act inconsistent with the offeror’s ownership of offered property is bound e. Comment e: But the offeree isn’t ordinarily permitted to avoid contract obligation by asserting that he’s a tortfeasor, rather than a promisor and at the option of the offeror he may be held to an acceptance despite the manifestation of contrary intent. Such an obligation may fairly be characterized as quasi-contractual f. R § 53(3): rendering the invited performance doesn’t constitute an acceptance if before the offeror performs his promise, the offeree manifests an intention not to accept g. UCC § 2-602(1) and 1(c): seller of goods in buyer’s possession can treat improper use of those goods as either tort or acceptance
3. Ammons v. Wilson – silence IS acceptance a. No communication for 12 days can be considered acceptance because of prior dealings between parties b. Rule of law: where offeree fails to reply to offer, silence or inaction may constitute acceptance due to previous course of dealings that would give offeror reason to understand silence or inaction as manifestation of acceptance i. Previous dealings are most usual way of implying a promise/contract c. R § 69(c): where because of previous dealings it’s reasonable that offeree should notify the offeror if he doesn’t intent to accept d. UCC 1-303(b): course of dealings = common understanding – sequence of conduct 4. Beneficial National Bank v. Peyton – silence IS acceptance a. Facts: P seeks to compel arbitration based on arbitration provision contained w/in K signed by D; D’s account transferred between banks, acknowledged new K, continued using card and now disputes arbitration b. Rule of law: a mandatory arbitration provision added to credit card agrmt is binding upon cardholder so long as he receives notice of the change i. D argues the OG agrmt he signed didn’t allow P the right to add new terms (only make changes to existing terms) court says no distinction between those ii. There was valid acceptance by silence because D contracted with them when he originally signed up for the credit card and he agreed that silence can operate as acceptance iii. D didn’t timely notify P that he rejected the change c. R § 69 TERMINATION OF OFFERS & RELIANCE INTERESTS How is an offer terminated? (§36)
c. Rule of law: offer may be withdrawn by indirect revocation where offeree receives reliable information from a third party that the offeror has engaged in conduct indicative to a reasonable person that the offer has been withdrawn i. No consideration to keep the promise open – no option contract ii. If the offer isn’t accepted by Friday, offer lapses. Offeror can terminate offer before that but has to notify offeree iii. When offeror takes action inconsistent with his offer, the offer is terminated iv. If P saw D before D said anything and said he accepts, there’d be a K d. What conditions must be met for indirect communication to be effective? i. The information must be definite ii. The definite info has to unequivocally manifest contrary intent iii. The mode of relay has to be reliable e. R § 43: an offeree’s power of acceptance is terminated when the offeror takes definite action inconsistent with intention to enter the proposed K and the offeree acquires reliable info to that effect f. UCC 2-205: an offer by a merchant in a signed writing which gives assurance that it will be held open is not revocable OPTION CONTRACTS
a. Facts: P and D entered into series of transactions where seller would send invoice and order acknowledgement form containing additional terms including arbitration clause; after receiving defective shipment and refusing to pay, seller submitted to arbitration which buyer disputed b. Rule of Law: additional terms to K that the other party hasn’t assented to will be knocked out i. Seller’s arbitration clause was additional term, thus governed by UCC 2- ii. Because the invoice said it was conditioned on the buyer’s assent, the unless proviso, of UCC 2-207(1) is in effect and the invoice becomes a counteroffer iii. Since P has never signed it, no expressed assent there’s no K under 2-207(1) or (2) iv. But under 2-207(3), their 38-fold course of dealings creates a K, but only under the terms agreed upon by both parties, which means that the forum selection clause drops out and is not binding v. Under the UCC, if the K is silent then the law will put in the fillers from UCC
4. Pro-CD v. Zeidenberg a. Facts: Company collects data for commercial use from database – consumers of which are subject to an end user license agreement, agreeing not to sell the product. The notification of terms (shrink wrap) is contained on the outside of the CD. Court held that this notification was sufficient b. Must reject additional terms or they will be accepted c. Where someone is deliberately exploiting the other party, such as is the case here, and the price they bought at shows this, then they’re clearly acting opportunistically, and a court will be highly motivated to find they are bound d. UCC 2-207 doesn’t apply because there’s only one form and so UCC 2-206 applies (K can be made in any manner reasonable – K with terms to follow is ok), which allows for shipment of goods with different terms – the K included the restriction e. Where buyer has opportunity to inspect the goods and reject them, and doesn’t, he’s bound i. The notification was outside the package, so you knew about it before you opened it – you also know it before opening, so before contracting ii. No effective rejection = acceptance 5. Rich Hill v. Gateway a. Facts: P orders computer via phone; receives computer with terms in package said to govern unless computer is returned within 30 days; P kept computer then brought suit in court b. Shrinkwrap terms on the outside is sufficient notice of terms on the inside K formed when buyer receives and keeps goods c. Rule of Law: Under the UCC, a purchaser may be bound to terms included in product packaging if the purchaser has an opportunity to review the agreement and reject it by returning the product i. Gets around 2-207 by saying it irrelevant because only one form = no battle of the forms 1. Extension of ProCD to consumer ii. Applies 2-204: Reasonable because notice in ads that extra terms would accompany purchase iii. As long as you know there will be terms in the box, then you have notice and can ask sales rep to read them to you – it need not be reads to be effective d. Jurisdictions vary but tips toward hill e. Rolling contracts = pay now, terms later 6. Klocek v. Gateway a. Facts: same as Rich Hill except buyer needed to reject within 5 days. Court says arbitration agreement is not enforceable (does not follow Hill ) b. UCC 2-207: applies to acceptance with additional terms, even if the offer did not have a form – court finds that the act of keeping the computer past 5 days wasn’t sufficient to demonstrate that P’s expressly agreed to standard terms i. 2207 applies because it applies to confirmatory memoranda