Case Rule Online

Question 1

ÿ† Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.

Answer 1

Failure to abide by a moral or ethical obligation does not give rise to an action for breach of contract.

Question 2

ÿ† Pierce v. The Clarion Ledger.

Answer 2

A moral obligation alone does not give rise to any express or implied contractual duties.

Question 3

ÿ† Kilarjian v. Vastola.

Answer 3

The equitable remedy of specific performance in a contract setting is a discretionary one that a court may order depending upon a review of all relevant circumstances.

Question 4

ÿ† Pass v. Shelby Aviation, Inc.

Answer 4

When employing the predominant factor test to determine whether Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 applies to a mixed transaction involving goods and services, courts should examine the language of the contract, the nature of the business of the supplier of the goods and services, the purpose of the contract, and the respective amounts charged for goods and services.

Question 5

ÿ† Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Marketing Group, Inc.

Answer 5

The sale of customized software, in contrast to the sale of pre-made, off the shelf software packages, does not qualify as a sale of goods.

Question 6

ÿ† Morales v. Sun Contractors, Inc.

Answer 6

Acceptance of a contract is not determined by the offereeís subjective intent, but by the offereeís outward expressions of assent.

Question 7

ÿ† SR International Business Insurance Co., Ltd. v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC.

Answer 7

When a court determines a contract is ambiguous, evidence of a partyís subjective intent is admissible to supplement the objective evidence of that partyís intentions.

Question 8

ÿ† James v. McDonaldís Corporation.

Answer 8

A contract provision shall be enforceable against a party if that party had the opportunity to review the provision prior to agreeing to the contract.

Question 9

ÿ† Hoffman v. Supplements Togo Management, LLC.

Answer 9

In order for contract terms listed on a website to be valid, the website must provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the existence of such terms and do so in a manner that is not manifestly unfair.

Question 10

ÿ† Lucy v. Zehmer.

Answer 10

The assent necessary to form a contract will be imputed to a person based on the reasonable meaning given to his words and acts and not on his unexpressed intentions.

Question 11

ÿ† Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc.

Answer 11

An advertisement is not an enforceable offer when it could not be considered by an objective reasonable person as a true offer, rather than as an obvious joke.

Question 12

ÿ† Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc.

Answer 12

Generally, solicitations for bids in the construction context are invitations to offer, while the bids themselves constitute offers that may be accepted by the party soliciting the bid

Question 13

ÿ† Babcock & Wilcox Company v. Hitachi America, Ltd.

Answer 13

Price quotations are usually considered invitations for an offer, rather than an offer to form a binding contract.

Question 14

ÿ† Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc.

Answer 14

An offer for a reward becomes binding when the offeree performs the requested actions to claim the reward but the same is not true when the offer is an advertisement to receive offers.

Question 15

ÿ† Roth v. Malson.

Answer 15

To create a valid contract, an acceptance of an offer must be absolute and unqualified.

Question 16

ÿ† Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang.

Answer 16

Under the Mailbox Rule, a contract is considered accepted once the offeree dispatches his or her acceptance in the mail or via facsimile.

Question 17

ÿ† Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Company.

Answer 17

In the limited context of employee handbooks, the employee need not be aware of each provision contained therein for there to be a valid acceptance of the employerís promises contained in the handbook.

Question 18

ÿ† Pride v. Lewis.

Answer 18

While generally silence does not constitute acceptance of an offer, acceptance may exist when an offeree, made aware of the terms of the offer and given the opportunity to reject the goods or services, takes the benefit of the goods or services.

Question 19

ÿ† Hendricks v. Behee.

Answer 19

No contract is formed when the offer is revoked before the acceptance is communicated to the offeror.

Question 20

ÿ† Dickinson v. Dodds.

Answer 20

An offer may be withdrawn by an indirect revocation where the offeree receives reliable information from a third party that the offeror has engaged in conduct indicative to a reasonable person that the offer was withdrawn.

Question 21

ÿ† Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Answer 21

An advertised reward to anyone who performs certain conditions specified in the advertisement is an offer, and the performance of such conditions is an acceptance which creates a valid contract.

Question 22

ÿ† Lively v. IJAM, Inc.

Answer 22

Under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) ß 2-207( 2), once a contract for the sale of goods is formed and one of the parties is not a merchant, any additional terms are only construed as proposals for addition to the contract that must be accepted by the consumer.

Question 23

ÿ† Polytop Corporation v. Chipsco, Inc.

Answer 23

(1) Under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) ß 2-207( 1), acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms. (2) Under UCC 2-207( 2), where both parties are merchants, additional terms shall become part of the contract unless: (1) the offer expressly limits acceptance to terms of the offer; (2) the new terms materially alter the agreement; or (3) objection to the new terms is given within a reasonable time.

Question 24

ÿ† ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg.

Answer 24

Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) ß 2-204( 1), a contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct of the parties.

Question 25

ÿ† DeFontes v. Dell, Inc.

Answer 25

Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) ß 2-204, terms and conditions provided to the purchaser at the time the purchaser receives the ordered goods become part of the contract, provided that: (1) the seller makes clear to the purchaser that acceptance of the goods constitutes acceptance of the terms and conditions and (2) informs the consumer that he or she has the right to reject the terms by returning the goods.

Question 26

ÿ† Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.

Answer 26

Under federal maritime law, fundamental fairness requires that private ticket passengers be given reasonable time to reject the terms and conditions of their ticketing contract.

Question 27

ÿ† Brown v. Cara.

Answer 27

Unless a preliminary agreement is complete and binds both parties to their ultimate contractual objective, preliminary agreements typically are not enforceable where the parties contemplate further negotiations and the future execution of a formal written agreement.

Question 28

ÿ† Cochran v. Norkunas.

Answer 28

Even though parties to a preliminary agreement may have agreed upon all of the terms, if the parties intended objectively to not bind themselves until a formal, complete contract is in place, then no enforceable contract exists between the parties until that occurs.

Question 29

ÿ† Arbitron, Inc. v. Tralyn Broadcasting, Inc.

Answer 29

Where the parties have left a material term in the contract open, the contract shall not fail for vagueness where there exists in the contract a mechanism for objectively determining that material term without the requirement of further negotiations and the parties intended to be bound by that mechanism.

Question 30

ÿ† Baer v. Chase.

Answer 30

A contract is unenforceable for vagueness when the material terms are so indefinite that a court cannot determine what each party promised to do.

Question 31

brown v. cara

Answer 31

While Type I preliminary agreements bind the parties to their ultimate contractual objective, Type II preliminary agreements commit the parties to negotiate the unresolved terms in good faith in an attempt to come to a full and complete agreement.

Question 32

ÿ† Cooke v. Goethals.

Answer 32

Sufficient partial performance in reliance upon an oral agreement to convey real property is a valid exception to the statute of fraudís requirement that such contracts be in writing.

Question 33

ÿ† Mackay v. Four Rivers Packing Co.

Answer 33

The Statute of Frauds requirement that any contract that cannot be performed within one year of its making must be in writing does not apply to those contracts which may be performed within one year.

Question 34

ÿ† International Casings Group, Inc. v. Premium Standard Farms, Inc.

Answer 34

An electronic signature satisfies the signature requirement of the Uniform Commercial Codeís (UCCís) Statute of Frauds, as long as the party has the present intention to authenticate the document.

Question 35

ÿ† Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo.

Answer 35

An oral promise is unenforceable without consideration in the form of a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee.

Question 36

ÿ† Hamer v. Sidway.

Answer 36

Forbearance on the part of a promisee is sufficient consideration to support a contract.

Question 37

ÿ† Blackmon v. Iverson.

Answer 37

Past consideration is insufficient to support a subsequent promise.

Question 38

ÿ† Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. American Ash Recycling Corp.

Answer 38

Consideration exists when a promisor benefits, a promisee suffers a detriment, and the promise was not gratuitous, even if the parties do not bargain for the consideration.

Question 39

ÿ† Carlisle v. T & R Excavating, Inc.

Answer 39

Consideration is bargained for when it is sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise and is given by the promisee in exchange for the promise.

Question 40

ÿ† Kessler v. National Presto Industries.

Answer 40

Courts usually do not inquire into the adequacy of the consideration for a contract, unless the consideration is so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court.

Question 41

ÿ† Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel and Casino.

Answer 41

Minimal detriment to a participant in a promotional contest is sufficient consideration for a valid contract.

Question 42

ÿ† White v. Village of Homewood.

Answer 42

The pre-existing duty rule holds that the performance of an act one is already legally obligated to perform cannot constitute consideration to support a contract.

Question 43

ÿ† Fiege v. Boehm.

Answer 43

One partyís promise not to assert a claim which she reasonably believes in good faith to be valid but which in fact is invalid may serve as consideration for a return promise by another party.

Question 44

ÿ† Luchtís Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner.

Answer 44

An employeeís continuation of at-will employment after being asked to execute a noncompetition agreement constitutes valid consideration to support the agreement.

Question 45

ÿ† Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon.

Answer 45

If a promise may be implied from the writing even though it is imperfectly expressed, there is a valid contract.

Question 46

ÿ† Matarazzo v. Millers Mutual Group, Inc.

Answer 46

A state court can bar a claim on the basis of governmental immunity from tort claims where a complaint states a claim for promissory estoppel.

Question 47

ÿ† Conrad v. Fields.

Answer 47

The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are (1) a clear and definite promise, (2) the promisor intended to induce reliance by the promise, (3) the promisee relied to the promiseeís detriment, and (4) the promise must be enforced to prevent injustice.

Question 48

ÿ† In re Morton Shoe Company.

Answer 48

Where there is detrimental reliance, a charitable pledge is enforceable as a promise.

Question 49

ÿ† Universal Computer Systems, Inc. v. Medical Services Assn.

Answer 49

A promisee who reasonably relies upon the apparent authority of the employee of another, to his detriment, may recover for breach of contract based upon promissory estoppel.

Question 50

ÿ† Garwood Packaging, Inc. v. Allen & Company, Inc.

Answer 50

The essence of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not that the plaintiff has reasonably relied on the defendantís promise, but that he has reasonably relied on its being a promise in the sense of a legal commitment, and not a mere prediction or aspiration or bit of puffery.

Question 51

ÿ† McIntosh v. Murphy.

Answer 51

The Statute of Frauds notwithstanding, an oral contract is nevertheless enforceable when it is based on a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect would induce either action or forbearance on the part of the promisee and when injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the contract.

Question 52

ÿ† Tour Costa Rica v. Country Walkers, Inc.

Answer 52

A jury may award expectation damages in a claim based on promissory estoppel if under the circumstances it is the only way to avoid injustice.

Question 53

ÿ† Drennan v. Star Paving Co.

Answer 53

Reasonable reliance on a promise binds an offeror even if there is no other consideration.

Question 54

ÿ† Brooklyn Bagel Boys, Inc. v. Earthgrains Refrigerated Dough Products, Inc.

Answer 54

A contract for the sale of goods is not a requirements contract if it does not specify a quantity of goods to be bought and sold.

Question 55

ÿ† Martin v. Little, Brown & Co.

Answer 55

One who volunteers information to another to the otherís benefit has not formed a contract.

Question 56

ÿ† Feingold v. Pucello.

Answer 56

Attorneys must state their contingency fees in writing before, or within a reasonable time after commencing representation.

Question 57

ÿ† Estate of Cleveland v. Gorden.

Answer 57

A person who voluntarily pays anotherís debts is entitled to reimbursement if payment is the result of a moral obligation, ignorance of the facts, or erroneous impression of oneís legal duty.