Contract Outline Flashcards Preview

CONTRACTS FALL 2017 > Contract Outline > Flashcards

Flashcards in Contract Outline Deck (26)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

W2:

A

Offers; Acceptance/Counteroffer

2
Q

W1: Lonergan v. Scolnick

A

BL: There is no meeting of the minds, and therefore, no enforceable contract (per Fox), where communications between the parties do not evidence a definite offer and acceptance.

3
Q

BL: An advertisement, which a reasonable person would not take seriously and refers to other material, is not an offer.

A

W2: Leonard v. Pepsico

4
Q

W6:

A

Promissory Estoppel; Restitution; Promissory Restitution; Duress; Misrepresentation,

5
Q

BL: Relief of a manufacturer’s legal obligation to dispose of a material classified as hazardous waste, such that the manufacturer avoids the costs of disposal, contitutes sufficient consideration to ground contract and warranty claims brought by the disposer.

A

W2: Pennsy v. American Ash >Consideration

6
Q

W8:

A

Public Policy; Theory and Practice of Contractual Assent; Statute of Frauds; Mistake; Impossibility

7
Q

Princess >Battle of Forms (common law) > Mirror Image:

A

BL: When the predominant purpose of a maritime or land-based contract is the rendering of services rather than the furnishing of goods, the UCC is inapplicable, and courts must draw on common-law doctrines when interpreting the contract.

8
Q

W2: Normile v. Miller

A

BL: A prospective purchaser does not have the power to accept a counteroffer after receiving notice of its revocation by accepting the counteroffer within the time period specified in the prospective purchaser’s original offer.

9
Q

BL: There is no meeting of the minds, and therefore, no enforceable contract (per Fox), where communications between the parties do not evidence a definite offer and acceptance.

A

W1: Lonergan v. Scolnick

10
Q

W2: Pennsy v. American Ash >Consideration

A

BL: Relief of a manufacturer’s legal obligation to dispose of a material classified as hazardous waste, such that the manufacturer avoids the costs of disposal, contitutes sufficient consideration to ground contract and warranty claims brought by the disposer.

11
Q

BL: A note that is not supported by consideration is unenforceable.

A

Dougherty >Consideration >Restatement (2nd) Sec. 71(b) >Donative Promises (Promises and Value: Existence of Consideration)

12
Q

W4:

A

Consideration; Agreement to Agree; Unilateral Contracts; Option Contract; Battle of Forms (common law)

13
Q

BL: When the predominant purpose of a maritime or land-based contract is the rendering of services rather than the furnishing of goods, the UCC is inapplicable, and courts must draw on common-law doctrines when interpreting the contract.

A

Princess >Battle of Forms (common law) > Mirror Image:

14
Q

Walker >Common Law >Agreement to Agree

A

BL: Where essential terms such as price are not contained in an option contract, and no standards are included whereby such terms may be judicially determined (specific formula, designated arbitrator, extrinsic market source, etc.), no contract exists.

15
Q

Batsakis >Consideration > Restatement (2nd) Sec. 79 >Adequacy of Consideration: Promises and Value: Value of consideration.

A

BL: Mere inadequacy of consideration (disparity in value) will not void a contract.

16
Q

BL: A prospective purchaser does not have the power to accept a counteroffer after receiving notice of its revocation by accepting the counteroffer within the time period specified in the prospective purchaser’s original offer.

A

Normile v. Miller

17
Q

BL: Where essential terms such as price are not contained in an option contract, and no standards are included whereby such terms may be judicially determined (specific formula, designated arbitrator, extrinsic market source, etc.), no contract exists.

A

Walker >Common Law >Agreement to Agree

18
Q

Dougherty >Consideration >Restatement (2nd) Sec. 71(b) >Donative Promises (Promises and Value: Existence of Consideration)

A

BL: A note that is not supported by consideration is unenforceable.

19
Q

W9:

A

Implied Terms (Reasonable Efforts, Good Faith, & Warranties);Modification

20
Q

W1:

A

Introduction to Contract Law; Mutual Assent and Offer/Acceptance

21
Q

W7:

A

Unconscionability

22
Q

BL: If an offer is conveyed by the objective reading of an advertisement, it does not matter that the advertiser may subjectively have not intended for its chosen langauge to constitute a binding offer.

A

W1: Izadi v. Machado

23
Q

W1: Izadi v. Machado

A

BL: If an offer is conveyed by the objective reading of an advertisement, it does not matter that the advertiser may subjectively have not intended for its chosen langauge to constitute a binding offer.

24
Q

W3:

A

Offer-Acceptance; Consideration

25
Q

BL: Mere inadequacy of consideration (disparity in value) will not void a contract.

A

Batsakis >Consideration > Restatement (2nd) Sec. 79 >Adequacy of Consideration: Promises and Value: Value of consideration.

26
Q

W2: Leonard v. Pepsico

A

BL: An advertisement, which a reasonable person would not take seriously and refers to other material, is not an offer.