Contract Defenses Flashcards
What are the eight contract defenses? (DUI DUI MS)
- Deception
- Undue Influence
- Illegality
- Duress
- Unconscionability
- Incapacity
- Mistake
- Statute of Frauds
What are the three types of deception?
- Misrepresentation
- Non-Disclosure
- Concealment
What are the elements of misrepresentation
- A false statement of fact, intention, or opinion
- Addressing a fact, intention, or opinion material to the contract
- Made with requisite state of mind
- Actually and justifiably relied on by the other party
- That caused damage to the other party
What are the three sufficient mindsets for element 3 of misrepresentation
The speaker
- knew that the statement of fact/intention/opinion was false (intentional misrepresentation/fraudulent representation)
- Reasonably should have known the statement of fact/intention/opinion was false (negligent misrepresentation)
- Reasonably should not have and did not know that the statement of fact/intention/opinion was false (innocent misrepresentation)
Which mindset(s) qualifies for punitive damages?
Only intentional misrepresentations qualify for punitive damages
What element becomes unnecessary if misrepresentation is intentional (ie fraudulent representation)?
If misrepresentation is intentional, (ie fraudulent representation), then element 2. materiality, is not necessary
What elements become unnecessary if misrepresentation is negligent or innocent?
None. All elements are required
What must a plaintiff claiming misrepresentationshow to be eligible for relief for actual damages instead of/in addition to remedy by rescinding contract?
Plaintiff must show that the misrepresentation was either intentional or negligent and that the plaintiff suffered actual damages.
What is the plaintiff entitled to if he shows that the misrepresentation was innocent and satisfies all other elements, including showing that he suffered actual damages?
If the misrepresentation was innocent, then the plaintiff is only entitled to remedy by rescinding the contract, and will not be entitled to any damages.
Are all misrepresentations of facts, intentions and opinions, actionable?
No. All misrepresentations of facts and intentions are actionable, however, for a misrepresentation of opinion to be actionable, it must imply specific underlying facts.
A seller of a used car says that in her opinion, the car is a “good buy.” The car doesn’t start. Is her false statement of opinion actionable?
Yes, because her statement implies important underlying facts, (like the car works)
How do you know if the second element of misrepresentation is met?
If a fact is material to the contract, then any reasonable person in the same circumstances would consider it important in deciding whether to make the contract.
Material facts are what ultimately would cause a reasonable person to accept or reject an offer.
Do considerations of expertise/good faith/mindset apply to the first two elements of misrepresentation?
No, these subjective considerations are irrelevant in deciding whether a statement/intention/opinion is false and whether it is material to the agreement. These subjective considerations are, however, relevant to the third and fourth elements of misrepresentation.
What is “actual reliance” on a representation?
Actual reliance occurs when a party acts because of the representation
What is “justifiable reliance” on a representation?
Justifiable reliance is reliance that is not completely irrational, preposterous, or absurd. (An extremely low standard).
What is the focus of analysis for “material fact?”
The factors that would lead a reasonable person to decide the transaction would be worth making
What is the focus of analysis for “justifiable reliance?”
The types of assertions and sources of information that a hypothetical reasonable person would consider sufficiently reliable to count on
What is the focus of analysis for “actual reliance”
Was the false statement a cause of the actor going through with the deal/sale/etc. (But for the false statement, would the actor have made the same decision?)
What is the test for material fact? Objective or subjective?
Would a reasonable person consider the fact important in deciding whether to enter a contract? Objective
What is the test for justifiable reliance? Objective or subjective?
Was the victims’ reliance wholly irrational, preposterous, or absurd? Mostly objective, but somewhat subjective, (consider expertise/good faith/mindset)
What is the test for actual reliance? Objective or subjective?
Did the representation cause the victim to make the contract? (subjective)
What assumptions for analysis for material fact?
Assume the facts are true
What assumptions for analysis for justifiable reliance?
assume the facts are false and ask, would a reasonable person still believe the statements? If yes, then there is justifiable reliance.
Assumptions for analysis of actual reliance
assume misrepresented facts are false, ask would the actor have made a different decision?
If a buyer manifests doubt in the veracity of the seller’s representations, but still agrees to the contract, relying on the seller’s assurances that the statements are true, as well as the contract’s warranty of those statements, is the buyer’s reliance still justified, (or was it absurd because he was suspicious that the statements were false)?
Yes, the buyer’s reliance is justified, because the buyer is not only relying on the statements of fact, of which he is suspicious and which turn out to be false, but also on the warranty which warrant the buyer of damages in the event that the statements are false. CBS Inc. v. Ziff-Davis
How to issue spot non-disclosure/mistake vs. misrepresentation
non-disclosure/mistake will not include any false statement of fact/intention/opinion