Contracts1 Case guide Flashcards
(24 cards)
Contracts 1
Hamer v. Sidway 1891
Drunk uncle promises nephew that he’ll give money if nephew doesn’t dirnk, smoke, or gamble until 21. Nephew performs. Consideration makes a promise a contract. Consideration can include a benefit to the promisor or cost to promisee.
Contracts 1
Shadwell v. Shadwell N/A
Uncle’s promise to provide mnoney without consideration was deemed binding N/A
Contracts 1
Lakota v. Newton N/A
Promise to pay $100 if person didn’t drink for a year was deemed valid N/A
Contracts 1
Talbott v. Stemmons N/A
Abandonement of right to use tobacco was sufficient consideration. N/A
Contracts 1
Lindell v. Roke N/A
Not using alcohol was enough consideration for a note. N/A
Contracts 1
Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. Americna Ash Recyling Corp. of Pennsyvlania 2006
COmpany builds school parking lot. They are given free AggRite (ash). Ash is dangerous and costly to dispose of. Ash proves defective and they have to dig up and dispose of the lot. Whether or not explicitly bargained for, consideration just needed to be a detriment to promissee or benefit to promisor. (Holmes test)
Contracts 1
Dougherty v. Salt 1919
Aunt signs a form that says when she dies boy gets some amount of money “in consideration of…”. No consideartion was given by boy and thus no enforcable contract. Simply saying there was consideration is not enough.
Contracts 1
Batsakis v. Demotsis 1949
Woman borrows money in WW2 greece. She gets a very small amount of money for a very large debt. Inadequacy of consideraiton is not enough to invalidate contract.
Contracts 1
Plowman v. Indian Refining Co. 1936
Workers are laid off and promised a lifetime pension. Sometime later told that they don’t get pensions anymore. Sue for breach. Past consideration is invalid. (Also there was no authority to make the agreement.)
Contracts 1
Newman & Snell’s Bank v. Hunter 1928
Promissory note from dead husband was worthless consideration for enforcing payment of his debt. N/A
Contracts 1
Walker v. Keith
A contract with ambiguous key terms is unenforcable.
Contracts 1
Cook v. Coldwell Banker 1998
A realtor is offered a bonus program. She performs under bonus which is to be paid int he beginning of January. In September, they try to change the rule so that you have to stay until March. She leaves in January and sues for her bonus. An offer to enter into a unilateral contract may not be revoked once the offeree has made substantial performance.
Contracts 1
Petterson v. Pattburg 1928
Man has mortgage and gets an offer to reduce principal by some amount if he pays off by a certain date. He goes to the guys house before the house and tries to pay, but the other man had already sold the land and couldn’t accept. A unilateral contract may be revoked at any time prior to the performance of the requested action.
Contracts 1
Princess Cruises, Inc. v. General Electric Co. 1998
Princess asks GE to fix their ship. In process, GE messes something up, but has a liability limitation clause in their contract. A contract mostly for services even under admiralty is not governed by the UCC.
Contracts 1
Jannusch v. Naffziger 2008
Carnival business is sold to Naffziger. They used the business for several events, paid some amount, and tried to return it claiming no deal was made. Sale of business was subject according to UCC and therefore there was a contract.
Contracts 1
E.C. Styberg Engineering Co. v. Eaton Corp. 2007
They are in intense negotations regarding a piece for Eaton’s transmission systems. Eaton wants to order a small amount, but Styberg keeps pushing for more. Eaton keeps ordering small bathes, but Styberg cancels. Where evidence shows ongoing communication, no contract under UCC.
Contracts 1
Brown Machine, Inc. v. Hercules, Inc. 1989
Continous negotiation for machine. Brown says price quote with their terms, Hercules sent an order form with their terms, Brown sends confirmation with their terms. The brown confirmation was the acceptance but did not contain a requirement that the acceptance was contingent on acceptance of the new terms (therby making it a counteroffer). An acceptance with terms must include explicit condition on acceptance of new terms to act as counter offer.
Contracts 1
Paul Gottlieb & Co., Inc. v. Alps South Corp. 2007
NY fabric company provides cloth to prosthetic company. They switched the fabric without telling company and this leads to a recall. To establish material change need to prove that incorporating the clause would have resulted in a surprise or economic hardship to a reasonable merchant.
Contracts 1
Hines v. Overstock.com, Incl. 2009
Woman sues Overstock because she didn’t know there would a resotcking fee a user is not bound to the terms and conditions of an online contract he/she had not been notified of, and this also includes a reasonable user of the website who have not seen the terms and conditions.
Contracts 1
Defontes v. Dell 2009
They buy computers and get terms when they open computers. Assent comes from not returning the product. Contract formation occurs when the consumer accepts the full terms after receiving a reasonable opportunity to refuse them.
Contracts 1
Kirksey v. Kirskey 1845
Woman’s husband dies. Husband’s brother tells her to come move in and then kicks her out. Moving was insufficient consideration
Contracts 1
Harvey v. Dow 2008
Child builds house on fmaily property and they refuse to give deed. Where a general promise is accompanies by affirming actions, an enforcable promise can be found..
Contracts 1
King v. Trustees of Boston University 1995
King gives letterrs to BU with a letter indicating under what conditions they become BU property. Where there is donative intent and evidence that could support a finding of a promise supported by consideration or reliance, the case is properly submitted to the jury.
Contracts 1
Katz v. Danny Dare, Inc. 1980
Man accepts retirement offer after he is injured and no longer able to work full time. They cut off his pension suddently. A promise can be held enforceable even if the promise doesn_t give up something they are legally entitled to (but as long as they acted to their detriment).
