Cases Flashcards
Midterm 1 Cases
Hamer v. Sidway
Procedural history:
The lower court favored the Uncles Estate, in that they viewed his performance as a induvial act of ones own benefit. The Nephew appealed.
Facts :
Hamer (P- Nephew) sues Uncles Estate(D-Sidway), when the Uncle promised to pay the Nephew in EXCHANGE for the Nephew to NOT drink, Gamble, Tobacco and swear(forbearance act) till he is 21 years old.
Issue statement:
Whether there was consideration when the Uncle promised to pay the Nephew a sum amount of money in exchange to for a forbearance(drinking…)?
Rule:
Consideration is the bargain of exchange between a promise for a promise or a promise for a performance(act/forbearance).
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
YES
Reasoning (why is the answer Yes/No) :
• The performance to forbear from drinking, tobacco, swearing and so forth, is held by the promise given by the uncle.
• Agreeing to do something can constitute adequate consideration sufficient to form a valid and enforceable contract
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Judgement reversed In FAVOR of Hamer(Newphew)
Kirksey v. Kirksey
Procedural history: Trail court(P-awarded $200 damages) then Kirksey(D) appealed.
Facts:
Widowed Sister in law(Antillico Kirksey-P) v. the brother in law (Kirksey-D). Brother in law wrote a letter to Antillico, feeling bad for her lose that she SHOULD sell her property and move to his property-in which she did. Later, he kicked her out.
Issue statement:
Whether there was consideration when Kirksey(brother) offered Antillico to sell her current property and move to his property for free?
Rule:
Consideration is the bargain of exchange between a promise for a promise or a promise for a performance.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
Although the brother in law made a promise to allow her to live on his property, she did not “perform” any act that would constitute a bargain of exchange. She essentially did nothing (done free of charge) and thus enforceable. It is reasonable to assume that IF Antillico offered to pay the brother in law rent money, he would have denied her.
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Judgement reversed in FAVOR of Kirksey
Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
Procedural history:
1. Wood(P) filed suit claiming: breach of contract 2. Lady duff(D): filed a demurrer-for the lack of consideration (Denied by trial court) 3. Duff appealed 4. Appellate in favor of Lady duff 5. Wood appealed to NY's highest court
Facts : Lady duff (D) entered into a contract with Wood(P), giving Wood the exclusive right to place her endorsement on other's clothing designs. In return, Lady duff would receive 50 percent of the profits, while Wood agreeded to keep financial records and take out all patents, copyrights and trademarks to protect her deigns. Lady duff, on her OWN accord started to brand other products and take all the profits.
Issue statement:
Whether there was consideration when Lady branded other profits for full profit when there is no promise on Lady duff’s behalf to share profits with wood?
Rule:
1. A contract may be enforced when there is no evidence of a promise, exchange as consideration, in the explicit terms of the contract. 2. A promise to us reasonable efforts may be implied from the entire circumstances of a contract.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
1. Consideration may be implied and enforceable even though it is not in the terms of the contract due to the duty of good faith. a. Wood made reasonable efforts to place endorsements and market her designs b. 50% of profits were split, thus BOTH parties intended that Wood would make sufficient reasonable efforts c. Keeping track of accounts provided to Lady Duff
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Judgement reversed in FAVOR of Wood.
Mattei v. Hopper
Procedural history:
Mattei(P) brought action to Hopper (D) for braching the agreement and the lower courts ruled in favor of Hopper.
Facts :
Mattei(P-Real Estate dev) was planning to build a shopping center and made several offers to purchase land owned by Hopper (D). Both agreed on a price, w/ a deposit of $1000, rest of the payment can be paid within 120 days(allows Mattei to acquire lessees). Hopper refused to hand over the deed due to illusory in the terms of the contract.
Issue statement:
Whether consideration can be nullified if Hopper is not satisfied(satisfaction clause) with the terms of the contact based on the claim of illusory?
Rule:
The satisfaction clause in a real-estate contract that bases one party’s promise to perform on satisfaction of a condition does NOT render the promise illusory or lacking consideration.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
Hopper cannot nullify the contract on the bases that he the contract lacks consideration on the fact that Hopper is not satisfied. It would give sellers unrestrictive rights to back out of deals.
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Judgement reversed in FAVOR of Mattei
Batsakis v. Demotsis
Procedural history:
Trail ruled in favor of Batsakis but not all the full contracted price. Batsakis appealed again.
Facts :
Batsakis (P) offered Demotsis(D), half a million of drachmas($25 US dollars) if she would sign a letter agreeing to pay him back $2000 US dollars. Demotsis alleged that the agreement failed for lack of consideration b/c the actual value was far less($25).
Issue statement:
Whether there was consideration when Demotsis agreeded to sign an offer letter from Batsakis for Half a million drachma in exchange for $2000?
Rule:
Inadequacy of consideration will not void a contract.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
• Although the amount agreed upon is largely disproportional to the amount received. Inadequacy of consideration does NOT void a contract.
• There was consideration because Batsakis gave Demotsis the $ in exchange for a promise to pay back.
• Policy: Just because the contract may seem unfair, both parties agreed on a written contract, and mere inadequacy of the amount valued does not invalidate consideration.
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Judgement affirmed in favor of Batsakis
Ricketts v. Scothorn
Procedural history:
Trail court entered judgement in favor of Scothorn(P) and Ricketts appealed
Facts:
• Scothorn(P) quit her job and left her profession as a bookkeeper after her Grandfather have her a promissory note promising to pay her $2,000.
• Grand father did not want his grandchildren to work, when Scothorn received the note, she quit her job.
• The terms of the note never obligated her to quit her job in order to receive the note
• Grandfather paid one year’s interest(showing intent)
Issue statement:
Whether Scothorn can claim Promissory Estopple when she quit her job and her grand father intended for his grand children to never work again for their to be consideration.
Rule:
Promissory estopple prevents a promisor form revoking an otherwise unenforceable gratuitous promise if she promisee foreseeable and reasonably relied on the promise to her detriment
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
• Scothorn quit her job (detriment)and intended to pay her the note. It is reasonable to assume that if the grandfather was still alive he would indeed hold up his promise.
• This is not considered a gift b/c she acted on behalf of her grandfather promise, if she did not quit her bookkeeper job then there would have not been a reliance on the promise
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Judgement affirmed in favor of Scotthorn.
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer co.
Procedural history:
Trail court filed in favor of Feinberg (P) and Pfeiffer(D) appealed.
Facts :
• Feinberg was an employee of Pfeiffer for 39 years.
• She acquired a lot of stock and became a loyal employee(book keeper, assistant treasure-many positions)
• To thank Feinberg, Pfeiffer raised her salary $50, and upon retriring she would be paid $200 a month for Life
• She continued for another two years until she retired
• She was paid the $200 but then it was reduced by half the amount due to a new president
Issue statement:
Whether Scothorn’s detrimental reliance(promissory estoppel) made an enforceable contact when she was offered $200 for life?
Rule: A gratuitous(thus uneforceable) promise is nevertheless transformed into a biding and enforceable contract if the promisee reasonably and detrimentally relies on the promise.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
D-Pfeiffer:
○ Lacking mutuality of obligations
○ She was not required to work for any period of time as a condition to retirement benefits
○ No bargain of exchange(perceived as a gift)
P-Feinberg
○ She considered that getting paid $200 dollars for life was enough to live on
○ She did not actively look for another job(her age) thus RELIED on the promise - INJUSTICE
○ It is reasonable to believe that if the promise was bargained for at the time of the offer, the ex president WOULD have agreed to pay.
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Judgement affirmed in FAVOR of Feinberg
Hayes v. Plantations Steel Co.
Procedural history:
Trail ruled in favor of Hayes(P) but Plantations(D) appealed
Facts :
• Hayes worked for Plantations for 25 years
• Hayes retired at the age of 65
• Old owner told hayes he would be taken are of with pension agreement but did not sign a formal pension agreement or mention any dollar agreement
• He was paid for three years of $5,000
• Did not look for any other employment
• New owner ceased payment
Issue statement:
Whether Hayes relied on his pension plan for there to be consideration on the bases of promissory estoppel.
Rule:
Promissory estoppel, act of reliance by the promisee to his detriment provide a substitute for consideration
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
• Was not done in reliance on the promise
• Hayes already decided to retire when the promise was made
• Hayes claim is THUS past consideration and not sufficient to support a contract
• There was NO promissory estopple or RELIANCE b/c he made the decision on his own accord and the promise did NOT INDUCE him to retire
• It CANNOT be said that NOT looking for another job could be considered reliance b/c it was clear that he was ready to retire @65
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Judgment reversed in FAVOR of Plantations
Webb v. McGowin
Procedural history:
Webb (P) brought suit to recover the unpaid installments, McGowin (D) Demurred, Trial court (McGowin) and then Webb appealed.
Facts :
• Webb (plaintiff) and McGowin were both employed at a lumber mill
• Webb was dropping larrge, pine blocks from the upper floor of the mill to the ground
• Webb chose to fall with the block diverting the block from hitting McGowin
• Mcgowin recognized that Webb(cannot work anymore) saved his life and agreed to pay Webb $15 every two weeks to sustain him
• McGowin made his payments until his death
Issue statement:
Whether McGowin’s past consideration for promising Webb $15 every two weeks for saving his life constitutes a enforceable contract?
Rule:
When a promisee confers upon a deceased promisor a benefit that is material and substantial, and is conveyed upon the person of the promisor and not merely his estate, the promisee is entitled to recognition and compensation from the promisor’s estate either by an executed payment or an executory promise to pay.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
• When a promisor receives a material benefit form a promisee, the promisor is morally bound to compensate the promise for services rendered:
○ McGowin received a material benefit when Webb saved McGowin form grievous harm, likely death
○ McGowin acknowledged this benefit, Promise to pay webb for the remainder of his life and did so until his death eight years later
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Affirmed, in favor of Webb.
Mills v. Wyman
Procedural history:
Mill(P) appealed
Facts :
• Mills (P) was taking care of Levi Wyman, the son of Wyman(D)
• Independent 25 year old Levi was ill and died
• Wyman(D) wrote to Mills that he would pay him for the expenses incurred for caring for his son
• Later, Wyman refused to pay and Mills brought suit
Issue statement:
Whether a promise based on moral obligation but made without legal consideration constitutes an enforceable contract.
Rule:
A promise based on a moral obligation but made without legal consideration does not constitute an enforceable contract unless it is tied to a preexisting legal obligation.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
• The promise made by Wyman to pay for Mills’ expenses is w/o legal consideration and thus unenforceable.
○ The son was a legal adult and independent
○ No longer a parent to child relationship
○ NO preexisting legal obligation
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Affirmed, in FAVOR of Wyman (father)
Harrington v. Taylor
Procedural history:
Harrinton appealed.
Facts :
• Taylor (D) assaulted his wife
• Taylors wife was going to swing an axe at him but Harrinton stop it with her hand
• She suffered a sever injury
• Taylor ORALLY promised to pay Harrinton for her damages
• Paid her a small amount but refused to pay more
Issue statement:
Whether Harrintons’ voluntary humanitarian act constitutes sufficient consideration to support a contract.
Rule:
A voluntary humanitarian act does not constitute sufficient consideration to support a contract.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
• Taylors promise to compensate Harrington for her damages is not enforceable because it is not supported by sufficient consideration from Harrington.
○ Harrinton acted voluntarily in stepping in between Taylor and his wife
○ Act was performed voluntarily and w/o solicitation from Taylor
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Affirmed in FAVOR of Harrington
Bailey v. West
Procedural history: Trail court(Bailey), both parties appealed.
Facts:
• West(D) purchased a racehorse that turned out to be lame and wanted to return the horse
• Seller did not accept the returned horse and was shipped to Bailey(P)
• Bailey was AWARE that the horses owner was in dispute
• Bailey took care of the horse, and sent monthly bills to West
• Upon receiving the first bill, West wrote that he was not the owner and owed nothing
• Bailey brought suit against West to recover for his services by a contract implied in fact and a quasi-contract.
Issue statement:
Whether there is a contract implied in fact when West took care of the horse when there was a dispute between the ownership of the horse?
Whether there is a Quasi-contract when Bailey voluntarily took care of the horse?
Rule:
Quasi contract:
1. Benefit conferred for Defendant BY plaintiff
2. Appreciation by Def of such benefit
3. Acceptance and retention by Def of such benefit under circumstances that it would be inequitable to retain the benefit without payment of the value
a. Absence of an enforceable contract, a party may still recover for value of the benefit conferred
b. Remedy is restitution which is addressed under damages
A contract is implied in fact if there is mutual agreement between the parties and intent to promise, but the agreement and promise are implied form the parties conduct and other fatcs, rather than made in words.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
• A contract is implied in fact if there is mutual agreement between the parties and intent to promise, but the agreement and promise are implied form the parties conduct and other facts, rather than made in words:
○ KEY: Intent of the parties and manifestation of assent to contract
○ No mutual agreement and intent to promise between West and Bailey
○ West renounced ownership of the horse
○ No intent to contract Bailey for any horse-boarding services
○ No mutual manifestation of assent through either words or conduct
• Quasi-contract established in equity:
○ Bailey knew of dispute of ownership
○ Bailey was merely a volunteer
○ West did not appreciate and accept the benefit that Bailey claims to have conferred
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Reversed in favor of WEST.
Lucy v. Zehmer
Procedural history:
Facts :
• Zehmer(D) who owned a parcel of land and a farm was in a bar with Lucy(P)
• Lucy offered Zehmer $50,000 to buy the land (have made many offers before)
• Talked for forty minutes, Zehmer did not believe that Lucy could come up with the $
• Lucy proceeded to write an agreement to sell on a bar receipt, and rewrote it again with his wifes signature as well(she thought it was a joke but it was whispered)
Issue statement:
Whether there was a valid contract when Lucy wrote out an agreement to sell their property for $50,000 on a bar receipt to Zehmer while under the influence and jokingly.
Rule:
The objective, outward expression of a party’s intent to be bound in an agreement, as opposed to that party’s subjective mental assent to the agreement, is all that matters when determining the existence of a valid and enforceable contract.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
• Zehmer’s outward actions, when interpreted by a reasonable person, indicate a willingness to be bound in his agreement to sell his farm to lucy, and Lucy is Thus entitled to specific performance of that agreement.
○ Does not matter if it was a joke
○ Discussed for a good amount of time
○ Redrafted at the request of Lucy to contain provision
○ Zehmer and Lucy where not drunk enough(drove a car)(aware of actions)
○ Reasonable person would have considered this a valid contract
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Judgement reversed and in Favor of LUCY.
Lonergan v. Scolnick
Procedural history:
Lonergan appealed
Facts :
• Scolnick(D) placed an ad in the newspaper to sell 40 acres of land
• Scolnick wrote Longeran(P) a letter describing the property, giving directions, and asking price.
• Lonergan relied, stating he was not sure he had found the property, asking for legal description, physical characteristics, suggest a bank as an escrow agent.
• April 8: Scolnick confirmed the location and approved the bank as an escrow agent, ALSO stating that he should ACT fast, due to other intrested buyers.
• April 12: Property sold to other buyer
• April 14: Longeran received April 8 letter and proceeded to deposit the asking price in escrow
Issue statement:
Whether there was an offer when Lonergan expressed interest and opened up an escrow account communicated thought a delivered letter to purchase Scolnicks Land for $2,500.
Rule:
A property owner who asks another person if he is interested in purchasig property has not, merely by asking, made an offer to the other person.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
• Merely asking a person whether he is interested in purchasing a property does not constitute an offer to sell the property to that person.
Scolnick-D-Seller: ○ No contract until the parites have agreed to some specfic thing ○ Intended to fid out whether Longerfan was intrested in the property ○ "Had to act fact"(implies nothing was offered yet) ○ "Expected to have a buyer" (inviting you to make an offer) ○ Lonergan-P-Buyer/offeror: ○ Was not given the time to man an official offer ○ Set up an escrow account ○ Prepared to give full amount t ○ Agreement on price and description
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Affirmed in FAVIR of SCOLNICK
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc
Procedural history:
Facts :
• Pepsico (D) began a promotional campaign that included a Harrier Jet for 7 Million pepsi points( $700,000) when its actual worth was 23 million dollars
• Leonard (P) sent in his 15 points and purchased the rest of the required points with a check.
Issue statement:
Whether Leonard’s offer for the Harrier jet constituted a valid contract when Pepsico advertised the Harrier jet on tv?
Rule:
An advertisement does not constitute an offer unless its terms are sufficiently clear and leaves nothing open for negotiation and an advertisement intended to be a joke cannot be sufficiently clear.
Holding (answer to issue statement) (yes/no):
Reasoning (why is the answer yes/No) :
• Generally, ads presumably does not constitute an offer, even when a price for an item is provided therein. (Both parties argue that vice versa in terms of offeror/offeree)
○ Leonard-P-(was an offer/offeree)
§ Commercial was clear and concise
§ Did not say it was joke
§ Raised the money and pepsi points (induced by offer-he agreed by raising the money)
○ Pepsico-D-(Not an offer/offeror/acceptors)
§ Joke
§ Reasonable person
§ Actual price was 23 million
§ Scene of the commercial were clearly unrealistic and sarcastic
§ Not listed in catalog
§ Ad are soliciting buyers to make an offer
§ Business want to accept on their terms/make the rules
Disposition (affirm/reserved in lower courts)(what happens next):
Judgement in FAVOR Pepsico
