Cases Flashcards
(58 cards)
Hamer v. Sidway
Basics: Uncle promised nephew $5,000 for abstaining from smoking, drinking and gambling until he was 21. Nephew abstained. Uncle told nephew he would keep money in an interest bearing savings. Expressed desire and intent to pay.
Ruling: There was consideration, it didn’t matter that nephew benefited from abstaining or that uncle didn’t benefit. All that mattered was the bargain for a forbearance, the fulfillment of the forbearance and the intent to be bound.
Kirksey v. Kirksey
Basics: Kirksey’s brother died leaving behind a widow and kids. He promised Sister Antillico a place to live on his land. Sister Antillico moved onto and. A few years later he kicked her off land.
Ruling: There was no consideration because there was no bargaining. Sister Antillico did not have to perform any actions or forbearance for the promise to be fulfilled. Also, it appears that Brother Kirksey did not intent to be bound evidenced by his later asking her to leave his property.
Alternative: Possibly enforceable under promissory estoppel. His promise was likely to induce action, it did induce action, and failure to enforce will result in injustice.
Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
Basics: Lady employed Wood and gave him exclusive rights to sell/license/market her designs for one year. In return he would keep half of profits. before a year, and without notice, she started doing the above mentioned without his knowledge and with held profits.
Ruling: There was consideration. Lady claimed the agreement required nothing of Wood (no required minimum sales, no min required $ to pay). However, Wood’s promise to pay profits accounts on a monthly basis was a promise to use reasonable efforts to bring profits, it was implied that he would give reasonable efforts to make a profit.
Mattei v. Hopper
Basics: Mattei made many offers to purchase real property from Hopper who finally agreed. There was a deposit receipt that had a satisfactory clause that made sale finalization dependent on Mattei getting satisfactory leases. Hopper claimed Satisfactory clause was illusory and that it lacked consideration because both parties were not bound legally (mattei could leave the contract for whatever reason he wanted)
Ruling: There is consideration. Contract was not illusory; satisfaction isn’t completely subjective. Contracts must be interpreted in good faith. We must avoid language that gives one party “unrestricted subjective discretion”
Batsakis v. Demotsis
Basics: Lendor agreed to give 500K dragmas ($25) in exchange for $2K repayment (plus interest). Debtor argued that there was no consideration b/c consideration was inadequate/unfair.
Rule: If there is consideration, mere inadequacy of a contract will not void the contract. Debtor got exactly what she contracted for. It’s not the court’s job to balance the fairness of contracts.
See § 79
Ricketts v. Scothorn
Basics: Grandpa gives grandaughter note for $2K with an implication that his grandchildren don’t work. She immediately quit her job in reliance of the note. Gpa said he intended to pay throughout his life. When Gpa died, executory didn’t pay the owner of debt.
Rule: There is equitable estoppel (promissory estoppel). Promise is enforceable even w/o consideration. Gdaughter altered her position for the worse in reliance of the promise made.
Williston’s Hypo
Basics: Rich man gives a gift by telling a tramp to buy a coat at the store under his credit account.
Rule: This is a GIFT. Not enforceable under consideration. also not promissory estoppel b/c simply walking to the store isn’t sufficient to change in position for the worse in reliance of the promise.
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co.
Basics: Board decides to give pension to valued employee. After a year, she retires on the reliance of the pension. She gets old and sick. New management stops making payments.
Rule: This in ENFORCEABLE under PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. Expanded bargain theory - she could have bargained for the pension.
Hayes v. Plantations Steel Co.
Basics: long-time employee announces retirement. 1 week before actual retirement, part-owner says, “We’ll take care of you.” New management stops paying checks after 7 years.
Rule: This is NOT ENFORCEABLE under PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. Expanded bargain theory - he COULD NOT have bargained for the pension b/c he announced retirement before talks of pension. There is no reliance on the promise b/c he would retire anyway.
Webb v. McGowin
Basics: Webb clearing deck by throwing blocks down below. See’s McGowin and falls 3 stories trying to save him. McGowen agrees to take care of him during Web’s life by paying $15/ 2weeks. McGowin dies and executory stops paying Web.
Rule: This IS ENFORCEABLE under PAST CONSIDERATION. There is a moral obligation; McGowin intended to pay for all of Web’s life.
Mills v. Wayman
Basics: Son get’s sick and a Mills takes care of him. Son dies. Father promises to pay for the expenses Mills incurred. Father doesn’t pay (saying it was a gift).
Rule: This is NOT ENFORCEABLE under PAST CONSIDERATION. Father promise was one-sided and doesn’t benefit (like coffee land). He didn’t intend to pay, b/c he stopped paying. Different from Web v. McGowin b/c McGowin paid for all of his life.
Harrington v. Taylor
Basics: Taylor was beating wife. Wife is about to kill Taylor with axe. Harrington stops axe mid-swing, injuring hand badly. Taylor promises to pay for medical expenses for saving his life. Then he doesn’t pay.
Rule: This is NOT ENFORCEABLE under PAST CONSIDERATION. Taylor didn’t intend to pay b/c he stopped making payments. This is more like a gift, even if there seems to be a moral obligation.
Similar to Mills v. Wayman b/c stopped payment show intention of the promisor.
Bailey v. West
Basic: West purchases horse but finds the horse is lame. West tries to return horse but seller refuses to receive. Driver drops off the horse to Bailey’s farm. Bailey knew ownership of horse was under dispute. Bailey takes care of the horse and sues for expenses.
Rule: This is NOT ENFORCEABLE under QUAZI-CONTRACT. Bailey knew ownership of horse was disputed; he can’t reasonably expect payment from West. Bailey was a mere volunteer. West recieved no benefit b/c horse wasn’t his.
Hamer v. Sidway
Rule: Consideration. K formation: Y Facts & Holding: Uncle promised nephew $5K for abstaining from smoking, drinking and gambling until he was 21. Nephew abstained. Uncle told nephew he would keep money in an interest bearing savings. Expressed desire and intent to pay. Forbearance = consideration
Ricketts v. Scothorn
Rule: Consideration. K formation: Y Facts & Holding: Grandpa gives granddaughter note for $2K with an implication that his grandchildren don’t work. She immediately quit her job in reliance of the note. Gpa said he intended to pay throughout his life. When Gpa died, executory didn’t pay the owner of debt. Enforceable even though there was no consideration because granddaughter “disadvantaged herself in reliance of the promise a right of action aros[e]”
Batsakis v. Demotsis
Rule: Consideration. K formation: Y Facts & Holding: Lender agreed to give 500K dragmas ($25) in exchange for $2K repayment (plus interest). Debtor argued that there was no consideration b/c consideration was inadequate/unfair. Mere inadequacy of consideration does not void consideration or contract(§ 79).
Kirksey v. Kirksey
Rule: Consideration. K formation: N Facts & Holding: Kirksey’s brother died leaving behind a widow and kids. He promised Sister Antillico a place to live on his land. Sister Antillico moved onto land. A few years later he kicked her off land. Traveling to claim gift is not bargaining. Therefore, NO consideration.
Mattei v. Hopper
Rule: Consideration. K formation: Y Facts & Holding: Mattei made many offers to purchase real property from Hopper who finally agreed. There was a deposit receipt that had a satisfactory clause that made sale finalization dependent on Mattei getting satisfactory leases. Hopper claimed Satisfactory clause was illusory and that it lacked consideration because both parties were not bound legally (mattei could leave the contract for whatever reason he wanted). Satisfactory clause not illusory/subjective because through all contracts, good faith and fair dealing is implied.
Wood v. Lucy
Rule: Consideration. K formation: Y Facts & Holding: Lady employed Wood and gave him exclusive rights to sell/license/market her designs for one year. In return, he would keep half of profits and pay accounts monthly. before a year, and without notice, she started doing the above mentioned without his knowledge and withheld profits. There was a contract b/c it was implied wood would give an effort, in good faith, to uphold his end.
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co.
Rule: Promissory Estoppel. K formation: Y Facts & Holding: Board promised to give pension to valued employee. After a year, she retires on the reliance of the pension. She gets old and sick. New management stops making payments. Injustice = too old + sick to return to job market.
Heyes v. Plantation Steel Co.
Rule: Promissory Estoppel. K formation: N Facts & Holding: long-time employee announces retirement. 1 week before actual retirement, part-owner says, “We’ll take care of you.” New management stops paying checks after 7 years. No reliance b/c he was going to retire w/o pension anyway.
Williston’s Tramp Hypo
Rule: Gift. K formation: N Facts & Holding: Rich man gives a gift by telling a tramp to buy a coat at the store under his credit account. No consideration b/c no bargaining (no expanded bargain theory), not unjust because he didn’t disadvantage himself by walking. What if to get coat he was required to forbear?
Web v. McGowin
Rule: Past Consideration. K formation: Y Facts & Holding: Webb clearing deck by throwing blocks down below. See’s McGowin and falls 3 stories trying to save him. McGowen agrees to take care of him during Web’s life by paying $15/ 2weeks. McGowin dies and executor stops paying Web. McGowin intended estate to pay.
Mill v. Wyman
Rule: Past Consideration. K formation: N Facts & Holding: Son get’s sick and a Mills takes care of him. Son dies. Father promises to pay for the expenses Mills incurred. Father doesn’t pay (saying it was a gift). Father didn’t intend to keep his promise (he stopped paying).
