Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Contracts > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Hawkins v. McGee

A

hairy hand
expectation damages
[value of perf hand] - [value of hand now]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Nurse v. Barns

A

iron mills
damages not limited by value of consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Sullivan v. O’Connor

A

stripper nose
reliance only

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

J.O. Hooker

A

contractor K + subcontractor K
UCC v. CL: look at nature of K (here, about duties, so CL)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

KGM Harvesting

A

lettuce
buyer’s right to cover (UCC 2-712)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Groves

A

didn’t leave in uniform grade
CoC > DMV
subjective value of land
dissent: CoC grossly disproportionate, should go with objective view

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Peevyhouse

A

coal mining and a bit of restorative work (restorative not done)
DMV > CoC; court favors relative economic benefit (both parties profiting from mining, not a major breach here, no economic waste)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Hadley v. Baxendale

A

crankshaft special circumstances not communicated, not foreseeable that lost profits = consequence of breach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Hector Martinez

A

whole machine delayed; more foreseeable, Q of fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Morrow

A

coin collection storage
Tacit Agreement Test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Chicago Coliseum

A

boxing match
only recover if reasonable certainty, no recovery for pre-K expenditures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Winston Cigarette

A

WHY UNCERTAINTY = LIMIT:
1. Damages based on lost profits = “shadowy, uncertain, and speculative and therefore incapable of legal computation”
2. would foster a disregard of the just rights of parties
3. Consequence of giving unlimited discretion to jury
4. Parties can specify otherwise if they disagree (e.g. liquidated damages clause)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Anglia Television

A

movie K
lost revenues not proven with reasonable certainty; RELIANCE instead
recover ALL reliance expenditures including pre-K reliance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Security Stove

A

booth but shipment delayed
TYPICALLY: [market value at time of delivery] - [market value at time should’ve been delivered]
If notice of peculiar circumstances but no lost profits, RELIANCE (not expectancy)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Luten Bridge

A

“bridge to nowhere”
avoidability; can’t recover damages from performance after notice of repudiation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Shirley MacClaine

A

wrongful termination of employment
[agreed salary] - [comparable/substantially similar employment (duty to mitigate)]
not required to take diff/inferior employment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Neri v. Retail Marine

A

boat sale repudiation
lost-volume seller

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Kemble v. Farren

A

comedy act, drops out
LDC can’t be a penalty (express lang of K)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Wassenaar

A

terminated manager early
valid LDC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Lake River Corp

A

LDC: 1 sum for all breaches
penalty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Loveless

A

breach of K to sell land P already improved
land sale Ks = specific performance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Scholl

A

auto parts
not unique enough; default for sale of goods Ks = monetary damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Sedmak

A

rare corvette
unique enough; specific performance for sale of unique goods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Mary Clark

A

no specific performance for personal services Ks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Lumley v. Wagner

A

performer breaches for another venue
no specific performance, but can get negative injunction (prevent performance at other venue)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Dallas Cowboys

A

football
negative injunction; special, exceptional, and unique knowledge, skill, and ability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Bush v. Canfield

A

flour initial deposit, then breach
restitution for initial deposits

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Attorney General

A

MI6
exceptional circumstance, govt entitled to restitution (D’s profits)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Britton v. Turner

A

partly performed labor K not compensated
restitution to breaching party
[reasonable value of benefit breacher conferred CAPPED at K amt] - [damages caused by their breach]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Vines v. Orchard Hills

A

Condo sale breach
not a willful breach; avoid unjust enrichment through restitution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Cotnam

A

emergency surgery after car wreck
quasi-K restitution damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Lumley v. Gye

A

perfomer breached bc hired her out of spite
malice v. good faith breach; torts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Embry

A

thought boss renewed his employment K
objective theory of assent
1. reasonable person, looking at D’s conduct, would think he intended to make K (objective), AND
2. P actually thought so (offeree’s subjective intent)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Lucy v. Zehmer

A

drunk farm purchase
don’t care about offeror’s subjective intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Nebraska Seed

A

only send letter saying he WANTED to sell
can’t accept without offer, preliminary negotiation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Lefkowitz

A

mink stole ad
ad = binding offer if clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Pepsico

A

Harrier Jet
old recognized rule = ads are not offers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Empro Manufacturing

A

letter of intent
not offer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Arnold Palmer

A

memorandum of understanding
fact-specific inquiry

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Dickinson v. Dodds

A

offer to buy, but learn seller agreed to other sale before accepted
revocation of offer allowed as long as before acceptance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Ardente v. Horan

A

wanted furnishings and fixtures included in house purchase
acceptance must mirror offer

42
Q

Step-Saver

A

box-top license on software package
UCC; no express unwillingness to proceed without additional terms, not conditional acceptance

43
Q

Union Carbide

A

Oscar Meyer sausage sales tax
UCC; can accept even if additional terms BUT not if materially alters offer

44
Q

Carbolic Smoke

A

reward if it doesn’t prevent illness
unilateral K

45
Q

Petterson

A

“I have come to pay off the mortgage”
if either form of acceptance = okay, starting performance = acceptance (unilateral K)
BUT before giving $ (performance) offer was revoked

46
Q

Hobbs

A

eel skins
acceptance by silence if reasonable to think ok bc of prior dealings

47
Q

Boone v. Coe

A

went to farm bc of promise to move in/manage
no reliance if K violates SOF

48
Q

Schwedes

A

no enforcing land K if not in writing + no partial performance

49
Q

Carnival Cruise

A

forum selection clause on cruise ticket
form Ks: reasonable if no bad intent

50
Q

Caspi v. Microsoft

A

forum selection clause
Form K: clause wasn’t hidden in T&C, considered adequate notice

51
Q

Barnes & Noble

A

cancelled HP Touchpad order
T&C: arbitration agreement; but NOT enforceable K bc no assent (no requirement to read, click before purchase)

52
Q

Hamer v. Sidway

A

$5,000 if you stop being a degenerate
agreed to incur detriment = adequate consideration

53
Q

Kirskey

A

widow moves onto widowed brother-in-law’s prop with kids, then kicked out
loss and inconvenience suffered = sufficient consideration

54
Q

Hem Pharmaceuticals

A

meds promised if did drug tests
unilateral K; performed, incurred detriment, binding K here

55
Q

Harris v. Watson

A

promise of more $ if worked harder to navigate boat
can’t modify if already agreed to it; no new consideration

56
Q

Stilk v. Myrick

A

boat crew already agreed to do whatever necessary on voyage; no new consideration

57
Q

Alaska Packers’

A

stopped working to demand extra $ on boat
lack of consideration if already agreed to do work under K

58
Q

Brian Construction

A

way more rubble than either party anticipated
new K formed, had valid consideration

59
Q

Newman v. Snell’s

A

“worthless piece of paper”
adequacy of consideration not considered by courts; willing to enforce bad bargains

60
Q

Dyer

A

no workers’ comp in exchange for lifetime employment promise (breached)
require good faith

61
Q

Ricketts v. Scothorn

A

$2,000 so granddaughter didn’t have to work
relied on to her detriment; promissory estoppel (sub for consideration)

62
Q

Goodman v. Dicker

A

promise of franchise
detrimental reliance; promissory estoppel (sub for acceptance)

63
Q

Halpert v. Rosenthal

A

surprise! termites
misrep even if innocent = allows rescission

64
Q

Byers

A

sold but didn’t own land yet
misrep must be material (value of possession and substantial rent amt agreed to)

65
Q

Vokes

A

old lady = terrible dancer
statement of opinion = misrep if party stating it has superior knowledge of truth/falsity of statement

66
Q

Austin Instrument

A

military hardware price upped, forced to pay more
economic duress

67
Q

Progressive Enterprises

A

price raised, so K price raised
no economic duress if price increase = justified
bound to modification if no duress

68
Q

Walker-Thomas

A

take back ALL items if default on 1 payment
unconscionability at time K = made

69
Q

Hanford v. Connecticut Fair

A

baby show but baby disease epidemic
No K if contrary to public policy (highly dangerous to community health)

70
Q

Goldberg

A

purposeful diverting of sales to get out of lease
implied duty of good faith

71
Q

Mutual Life Insurance

A

2nd lease on diff floor
no bad intent; no violation of duty of good faith and fair dealing

72
Q

Stop & Shop

A

business decision, not bad intent
no violation of duty of good faith

73
Q

Food Fair

A

business decision, not bad intent
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing SATISFIED

74
Q

Raffles

A

“Peerless”
no K if mutual reasonable misunderstanding of ambiguous term

75
Q

Oswald v. Allen

A

swiss coin collections
no K if conflicting understandings of K bc of ambiguity

76
Q

Weinberg

A

skirt/bouse combo = dress?
vague terms

77
Q

Frigaliment

A

what’s “chicken”?
ambiguity but use term vague

78
Q

Sun Printing

A

no set future price
just an agreeement to agree here

79
Q

Eastern Air

A

good faith reliance in prior dealings; valid requirements K

80
Q

Wood v. Lucy

A

Lady Duff Gordon indorsements, designs, licensing rights
exclusive dealings K
implied promise = value here

81
Q

Thompson

A

only verbal warranty of logs
Traditional default assumption: written K = full expression of agreements between parties
“four corners” approach

82
Q

Masterson

A

want to exercise option but Q whether meant to be just for fam or wife of fam member
modern approach: don’t assume integration; PER to determine whether partial or total integration bc of vague option lang

83
Q

Pacific Gas

A

does injury to prop include P’s prop or 3rd party’s prop?
if ambiguity, PER allowed to explain meaning

84
Q

Trident Center

A

want to prepay loan without extra fees
CA law: even seemingly unambiguous Ks allow mod by parol/extrinsic evidence
(criticize Pacific Gas ruling bc of this)

85
Q

Ziff-Davis

A

consumer magazine business purchase but material misrep of financial statements provided
breach of express warranty (believed seller’s promise of truth)

86
Q

Sherwood v. Walker

A

barren? cow
mutual mistake of material fact allows rescission of K

87
Q

Wood v. Boynton

A

diamond, not topaz
no fraud/mistake, no rescission just bc P made bad sale

88
Q

Lenawee County

A

prop condemned bc bad septic system
when both parties innocent, court decides who bears burden of risk of loss (purchasers here)

89
Q

Star Paving

A

construction K and subcontractor K (sub says mistake)
reasonable reliance on mistake, resulting loss = on party who caused mistake

90
Q

Tyra v. Cheney

A

contractor bid + obvious subcontractor bid mistake
unilateral mistake; rescission allowed since other party knew of mistake

91
Q

CNA & American Casualty

A

actor ODs before 2 films
impossibility: death of party obligated to perform

92
Q

Transatlantic

A

longer sail voyage bc of Israel invading Egypt
NO impracticability unless EXTREME/unreasonable expense/loss

93
Q

Krell

A

king coronation cancelled
subject matter of K cancelled, makes K worthless
frustration of purposes

94
Q

B&B

A

bad partner, dissatisfaction with performance
material breach: other may rescind K

95
Q

Lane Enterprises

A

no payment until assurance they’ll complete Step II of coating bridge components
reasonable grounds to demand assurance of performance

96
Q

Jacob & Youngs

A

Reading pipe only for plumbing
substantial performance under K, minimal impact, EXPECTATION DAMAGES
[value of full performance] - [value of performance received]

97
Q

Autosport

A

camper van
Perfect Tender Rule allows rescission of K
Seller’s Right to Cure not effected

98
Q

Edgar De La Tour

A

mitigated breach but sued before 1st K supposed to begin
allowed to sue for anticipatory breach once notice of intent or when breach actually occurs

99
Q

Sea Colony

A

K to build condo to sell to P
no anticipatory breach if only REQUEST to cancel K

100
Q

Scott v. Crown

A

stopped performing bc believed D couldn’t pay for wheat
stopping without adequately addressing concerns = anticipatory repudiation on Seller’s part, Buyer had right to cancel K

Contracts (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions