Contract Final Flashcards
Promissory Estoppel
§90 – A fundamental principle that permits enforcement of a promise even though the legal requisites for a contract are absent. The result is not to make the contract itself enforceable, but to grant a remedy for breach that “may be limited as justice requires.”
Promissory estoppel requires that a promisee’s reliance on a promise
be reasonable.
A gratuitous (and thus unenforceable) promise is nevertheless transformed into a binding and enforceable contract if
the promisee reasonably and detrimentally relies on the promise.
An offer which the offeror should reasonably expect to induce definite and substantial reliance by the offeree, and which does induce such reliance is binding on the offeror and enforceable even without consideration if
enforcement is necessary to prevent injustice to the offeree.
Unjust enrichment exists if
a defendant received a benefit from a plaintiff and it would be unjust for the defendant to keep that benefit for free
Promise to perform a voidable duty §86
A promise made in recognition of a benefit previously received by the promisor from the promisee is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice.
Webb v. McGowin – A lumber mill worker was injured saving his employer from harm, prompting the employer to promise biweekly payments. After the employer’s death, the estate stopped the payments, leading the worker to sue for enforcement of the promise. The promise was enforceable
§15(2) - if the contract is made on fair terms and the other party has no reason to know of the incompetence,
performance in whole or part may so change the situation that the parties cannot be restored to their previous positions or may otherwise render avoidance inequitable.
A contract involving a mentally incapacitated individual is not inherently void, but rather
voidable
Unenforceability on the Grounds of Public Policy §178
A contract is unenforceable if its formation or performance violates public policy, unless the public policy interest is outweighed by the interests in enforcement. Factors considered include the strength of the policy, the public interest, and the parties’ expectations.
Unenforceability on the Grounds of Public Policy
§179
Public policy encompasses laws, judicial decisions, administrative regulations, and societal standards that aim to protect public welfare, morals, or economic interests.
For public policy reasons, agreements providing for future procreation are
not enforceable even if they are clear when entered.
Misrepresentation Defined §159
A misrepresentation is an assertion not in accord with the facts.
Active Concealment §160
Active concealment of a material fact is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist
Duty to Disclose §161
Non-disclosure can be a misrepresentation if a party has a duty to disclose due to circumstances like fiduciary relationships or correcting a prior statement.
Material Misrepresentation §162
A misrepresentation is fraudulent if intended to induce assent or material if it would likely induce a reasonable person to agree.
Misrepresentation Preventing Assent §163
If a misrepresentation prevents a party from understanding the character or essential terms of a contract, the contract is void.
Effect of Misrepresentation §164
A contract is voidable if a party’s assent was induced by fraudulent or material misrepresentation, provided they were justified in relying on it.
- If a seller creates a condition that materially impairs the value of a contract and is within the knowledge of the seller or unlikely to be discovered by a prudent purchaser exercising due care,
nondisclosure of the condition constitutes a basis for rescission of the contract.
A disclaimer of reliance on specific representations contained in a contract bars
the use of parole evidence showing fraud.
§197 Term Exempting from Consequences of Misrepresentation
A term unreasonably exempting a party from the legal consequences of a misrepresentation is unenforceable on grounds of public policy.
Counter to Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris
Mistake of One Party §153:
A contract is voidable if one party makes a mistake about a basic assumption that has a material effect, unless they bear the risk of the mistake.
When a Party Bears the Risk of a Mistake §154
A party bears the risk of a mistake if the risk is allocated to them by agreement, they treat their limited knowledge as sufficient, or the court assigns the risk to them as reasonable under the circumstances.
A party may not rescind a contract for a mutual mistake of fact if
the party knew that the fact might not be true at the time the contract was formed.
Eisenberg v. Hall An ancient art expert bought two pieces from a dealer, both mistakenly believing they were ancient when they were modern reproductions. The buyer sought to rescind the sale, arguing mutual mistake about the age of the pieces. The seller disagreed, disputing the rescission despite having refunded the buyer for prior similar mistakes. Mutal mistake will not work if one consciously accepts and assumes the risk.
Under the UCC, a purchaser may be bound by terms included in product packaging if
the purchaser has an opportunity to review the agreement and reject it by returning the product.