Case Pithies Flashcards
Bailey v. West, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 249 A.2d 414 (1969).
“Man feeds lame horse for free.”
Contract “implied in fact”: requires mutual intent.
Quasi-Contract: needs a benefit conferred upon D by P, and acceptance and appreciation by D, such that it would not be right for D to avoid payment.
In this case, there was neither, as D did not accept the service and did not intend to do so. P acted as a volunteer.
Sullivan v. O’Connor
“Actress sues for a terrible nose job.”
If a given result is clearly promised, a doctor’s promise can create a binding contract.
Restitution: Refund of benefit from breacher to non-breacher (least common).
Reliance: Put non-breacher in position as if contract had never been entered.
Expectation: Put non-breacher in position as if contract had been fulfilled (most common).
Kirksey v. Kirksey, 1845.
“Come live with me so I can buy cheap land and kick you out.”
A gratuitous promise lacks consideration, as there is no bargained-for exchange.
Hamer v. Sidway, 1891.
“Don’t drink and I’ll give you money.”
It doesn’t matter if either end of the bargain benefits promisor or promisee as long as their is a bargained for exchange.
In re Edwin Greene
“Bankrupt signs contract with Mistress with $1 consideration.”
Intent to contract doesn’t create a legally enforceable contract if there is no exchange, and nominal exchanges such as $1, while having the trappings of consideration, are not real consideration.
Dan Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
“Don’t reveal my name and I’ll give you documents.”
The law doesn’t create a contract where none was intended, nor is the exchanging of promises binding, even if there is offer, acceptance, and consideration. D expressly said that they couldn’t make a binding promise.
Daniel Mills v. Seth Wyman
“Doctor treats son and is promised money after the fact by father.”
An offer to pay for a past unrequested service “past consideration” lacks consideration, though it may create a moral obligation to pay. (traditional rule).
Joe Webb v. N. Floyd and Joseph F. McGowin
“I crippled myself for life to save you”
Factors that can make a promise for “past consideration” valid. Material benefit + moral obligation + subsequent promise = sufficient consideration.
Restatement 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. A promise is not binding if the benefit was conferred as a gift or to the extent that the value is disproportionate to the benefit.
William Levine v. Anne Blumenthal, S/C of New Jersey.
“Tenant underpays on rent, is oral modification without benefit to landlord valid?”
For a subsequent agreement to have consideration, it must rest upon a new and independent consideration, however small.
Alaskan Packers’ Association v. Domenico, 9th circuit A/C.
“Sailors coerce for more pay to do what they already agreed to do.”
A modification made by demand for the benefit of one party, with the demanding party providing nothing more than the services already agreed to, is without consideration. Also, a modification made by coercion lacks consideration.
Angel v Murray, S/C Rhode Island.
“Garbageman asks for more money from city for more houses.”
A modification of a contract not fully performed on either side is binding if the modification is fair and equitable in view of new circumstances not anticipated by the parties when the contract was made.
Restatement 73: Performance of a legal duty owed to a promisor which is neither doubtful nor the subject of honest dispute is not consideration; but a similar performance is consideration if it differs from what was required by the duty in a way which reflects more than a pretense of bargain.
Restatement 89: A promise modifying a duty under a contract not fully performed on either side is binding
if the modification is fair and equitable in view of circumstances not anticipated by the parties when the contract was made; or
to the extent provided by statute; or
to the extent that justice requires enforcement in view of material change of position in reliance on the promise.
Rehm-Zeiher Co. v. F.G. Walker Co.
“Whisky distillery fails to provide agreed amount, buyer has no obligation to purchase. Mutuality?”
Free Way Out: If one of the parties can arbitrarily back out of the contract for any reason it wishes, a contract lacks mutuality.
W. M. McMichael v. Harley T. Price
“Man won’t buy sand from sand salesman he agreed to purchase from.”
In construing a contract where the agreement is a sale, the obligation to sell and buy must be mutual to render the contract binding. If one of the parties can escape future liability without some previous detriment, this is a “free way out” and lacks mutuality.
Otis F. Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
“Exclusive rights to fashion model endorsement is breached.”
Rule: An explicit promise may be lacking, and yet an “imperfectly expressed” implied promise may still be present. An implied promise is valid for mutuality.
Omni Group, Inc. v. Seattle First-National Bank
“Real estate company agreed to buy property after “satisfactory” feasibility report.”
A promise dependent on a condition isn’t by default rendered illusory. As long as the limitation isn’t so great as to make a promise illusory, a contractor can make his duty expressly conditional upon satisfaction with the quality of the bargained-for performance.
