Contracts Flashcards

Question

Applicable Law

Answer 1

Applicable LawHUCC vs. Common LawUCC Art. 2 → Governs sale of goods contracts.Common Law (CL) → Applies to all other contracts (e.g. services, construction, real property).Mixed Contracts (involves both goods & services/ other) → Predominant purpose of the contract controls the law to apply.HSale of Goods Contracts – UCC Article 2 governs all sale of goods contracts.− Goods = all things movable at the time of identification to the contract (except money/currency).*But, Common Law principles continue to apply, unlessthe UCC specifically displaces them.A sale of goods contract may be

Answer 2

Acceptance with Varying / Additional TermsMirror Image Rule (CL) – Acceptance MUST exactly mirror the offer; any variations constitute a counteroffer.UCC – Acceptance DOES NOT have to mirror the offerto form a contract.− BUT, additional or different terms are included only if:1) 2) 3) 4) Both parties are merchants;The term is not a material change;Offer does not expressly limit acceptance to the exact offer; ANDNo objection was made within a reasonable time.*Material change = likely to cause hardship/surprise (e.g. disclaimer of warranty, arbitration clause). won which parties agree-? ④ Last Shot Rule -terms of last communication sent to party who performed - material-changes risk or remedies - disclaim warranties

Answer 3

Timing of Offer/Acceptance & Mailbox Rule− Offer → effective when received.− Acceptance → effective when dispatched.▪ Exception → Acceptance of an Option Contract is effective upon receipt.− Revocation or Rejection/Counteroffer →effective when received.*Note: Offer may vary the default rules above.Mailbox Rule – If offeree sends both acceptance & rejection:− Acceptance dispatched before Rejection →Contract IS formed upon dispatch.▪ Estoppel Exception → If offeror relies on a rejection (received before acceptance), then offeree may be estopped from contract enforcement.− Rejection sent before Acceptance → Firstreceived by offeror controls. Only ACCEPTANCE is effective upon DISPATCH- relinquish control & properly address & stamp -Exceptions ⑤ rejection sent before acceptance →whichever is received first s2 A r ② offer states acceptance is effective Upon receipt AAA An ③ acceptance of an option contract r Arno ④ rejection received first & relied upon ** mailboxwie not mailboxwie physical communications ofthatnature ④received when comes into possession of addressee or agent - or deposited in usual place r⑧eceived when delivered to usual place of business or comes to their attention - if essentially revocation received and acceptance dispatched at the same time- toss-up for court

Answer 4

Implied-in-Fact Contract – A contract is created by conduct if: 1) The conduct is intentional; AND2) Each party has reason to know the other party will interpret the conduct as an agreement.*Treated the same as an Express Contract.

Answer 5

Indefiniteness / Absence of Terms – If terms of an agreement are not certain (cannot be ascertained to a reasonable degree of certainty), then it’s NOT enforceable.− Typically 4 terms are required → parties, subject matter, price, & time for performance.UCC – Only essential term is quantity.Indefinite Duration – Contract is generally invalid.Real Property – Requires (1) sufficient description of the land, AND (2) price.

Answer 6

Consideration – Bargained for exchange of any act or forbearance that benefits the promisor or causes detriment to the promisee.− Past / Moral Consideration → not sufficient.− Illusory Promises → are invalid; occurs when one party has no obligation to perform.− Promise of Gift → not sufficient.− Sham/Nominal/Token Consideration → not sufficient.Consideration Substitutes/Exceptions:− Material Benefit Rule – A promise made in recognition of a benefit previously received is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice.▪ BUT, not applied when: (a) conferred as a gift; or (b) value of promise is disproportional to the benefit conferred.− Promissory Estoppel – Applies when: (1) a party reasonably & foreseeably relied to theirdetriment on other party’s promise, (2) promisor reasonably expected a change of position in reliance, AND (3) it’s necessary to avoid injustice.Promise to Pay a Non-Legally Enforceable Past Debt – Is binding without new consideration if in writing.

Answer 7

Modification of Contracts – Requires (1) mutual assent AND (2) new consideration (unless an exception below applies).Pre-Existing Duty Rule (CL) – Past performance or a pre-existing duty is NOT adequate consideration.− Exceptions:a) Addition or Change in performance; b) Unforeseen Circumstances – a fair and equitable modification due to severe unanticipated circumstances AND contract isn’t fully performed by either party; ORc) Third-Party Promise – where duty was owed to a third-person (not promisor).UCC – No consideration is required for contract modifications made in good faith.− BUT, must have a writing if: (a) it falls within the Statute of Frauds; OR (b) original contract states that modification must be in writing.

Answer 8

Incapacity – Must have capacity to enter into a contract.− Contract is voidable by the person who lacked capacity.Lack of Capacity – Either:a) Lack of Mental Capacity – person cannot understand the contract’s meaning & effect; OR▪ Intoxication → may be deemed a lack of capacity only if other person has reason to know of intoxication.b) Minors – persons under 18yrs old.▪ Exception 1 → Necessities – minors are bound on contracts for necessities (food, shelter, clothing, medical care).▪ Exception 2 → Implied Affirmation –contract can be enforced if minor: (i) CONTRACTS 40lacked capacity at the time of contract; (ii) gains capacity later; AND (iii) retains benefit of contract without complaint.

Answer 9

Duress – Is a wrongful act or threat that overcomes the free will of a person.Physical Compulsion – Contract is void.Occurs if a person physically compels another person to agree to a contract (e.g. by gun-point).Non-Physical / Economic Duress – Contract is voidable by victim. Occurs when:1) an improper threat is made; 2) that induces a party; 3) who has no reasonable alternative; 4) to enter into a contract.*A mere threat to breach a contract (without more) is generally insufficient.MUndue Influence – Contract is voidable by victim.Requires:1) Unfair persuasion of a person (e.g. overbearing pressure), AND2) Who is either:a) under the domination of the person exercising influence; ORb) in a sufficiently close relationship to justify believing that the other person will act in their interest or welfare (e.g. family, fiduciary relationship).

Answer 10

Duress – Is a wrongful act or threat that overcomes the free will of a person.Physical Compulsion – Contract is void.Occurs if a person physically compels another person to agree to a contract (e.g. by gun-point).Non-Physical / Economic Duress – Contract is voidable by victim. Occurs when:1) an improper threat is made; 2) that induces a party; 3) who has no reasonable alternative; 4) to enter into a contract.*A mere threat to breach a contract (without more) is generally insufficient.MUndue Influence – Contract is voidable by victim.Requires:1) Unfair persuasion of a person (e.g. overbearing pressure), AND2) Who is either:a) under the domination of the person exercising influence; ORb) in a sufficiently close relationship to justify believing that the other person will act in their interest or welfare (e.g. family, fiduciary relationship).

Answer 11

Mistake & MisunderstandingMutual Mistake – Contract is voidable if:1) Both parties are mistaken;2) As to a basic assumption of fact;3) The mistake is material; AND4) The person asserting the mistake did not bear the risk of the mistake.*A mistake as to price/value is NOT considered material.Unilateral Mistake – Generally NOT a valid defense.Occurs when:1) a mistake by one party, 2) that is unknown to the other party, 3) concerning a basic assumption, 4) has a material effect.*BUT, a contract is voidable by mistaken party if: (a) one party knew or had reason to believe of the mistake; OR (b) the mistake makes the contract unconscionable.CONTRACTS 41Misunderstanding (Ambiguity as to Contract Term) –A contract is NOT formed when:1) A contract term is material & ambiguous;2) The parties have different subjective meanings of the contract term; AND3) Neither party is aware of the ambiguity.*If one party is aware of meaning understood by the other party → a contract is formed according to the understanding of the unaware party.*If parties have same incorrect subjective meaning → a contract is formed according to that meaning.

Answer 12

Fraud, Misrepresentation, & NondisclosureFraudulent Misrepresentation – Occurs when: (1) D knowingly, (2) made a false representation, (3) of material fact, AND (4) the other party reasonably relies on the misrepresentation to their detriment.− Contract is voidable by the injured party.Non-Fraudulent Misrepresentation – Occurs when: (1) a party/agent, (2) makes a statement of material fact, (3) that is false (no wrongdoing required), (4) inducing acontract, AND (5) the other party reasonably relied on the misrepresentation to their detriment.− Contract is voidable by the injured party.Non-Disclosure – There is no duty to disclose UNLESS: a) Active concealment occurs;b) A fiduciary relationship exists; c) It’s necessary to correct an earlier mistake; ORd) Failure to correct a past statement from being misleading.*Failure to disclose when required is deemed a misrepresentation.Concealment = An affirmative act intended to keep another person from learning a fact.− Concealment is deemed a misrepresentation.

Answer 13

Fraud, Misrepresentation, & NondisclosureFraudulent Misrepresentation – Occurs when: (1) D knowingly, (2) made a false representation, (3) of material fact, AND (4) the other party reasonably relies on the misrepresentation to their detriment.− Contract is voidable by the injured party.Non-Fraudulent Misrepresentation – Occurs when: (1) a party/agent, (2) makes a statement of material fact, (3) that is false (no wrongdoing required), (4) inducing acontract, AND (5) the other party reasonably relied on the misrepresentation to their detriment.− Contract is voidable by the injured party.Non-Disclosure – There is no duty to disclose UNLESS: a) Active concealment occurs;b) A fiduciary relationship exists; c) It’s necessary to correct an earlier mistake; ORd) Failure to correct a past statement from being misleading.*Failure to disclose when required is deemed a misrepresentation.Concealment = An affirmative act intended to keep another person from learning a fact.− Concealment is deemed a misrepresentation.

Answer 14

Illegality – Courts will NOT enforce illegal contracts.− Illegal Subject Matter → Contract is void.− Illegal Purpose → Contract is voidable by the party who did not know of the illegal purpose.*Performance is discharged if the contract subsequently became illegal.MPublic Policy – Courts will NOT enforce contracts that are contrary to public policy.Restrictive Covenant – Is ENFORCEABLE if reasonablein (1) time, (2) geographic area, AND (3) scope of activity limited.− If found unreasonable, Most Courts will enforce a restrictive covenant up to its reasonable limits.

Answer 15

Unconscionability – Occurs when the contract/term shocks the conscience of the court. Usually need BOTH:− Procedural Unconscionability → Unfair Bargaining – one party has a superior bargaining position over the other party and uses that power to their advantage.− Substantive Unconscionability → Unfair Terms – contract contains terms that are obviously unfair and one-sided in favor of the party with the superior bargaining power.If unconscionable, the court MAY: a) Refuse to enforce the contract;b) Enforce the contract without the unconscionable term; ORc) Limit the application of the term.

Answer 16

Statute of Frauds (SOF) – Contracts subject to SOFare not valid UNLESS in writing.Writing Requirement – Writing must (1) be signed by the party to charged, (2) reasonably identify the subject matter, (3) indicate a contract was made, AND (4) state the essential terms.Contracts Subject to Statute of Frauds:1) Marriage contracts – promise in consideration of marriage.2) Suretyship – a promise to pay the debt of another.3) 4) 5) ▪ Main Purpose Exception → no writing is required if the main purpose was to benefit the surety.Contracts that cannot be fully performed within 1 year – performance within 1 year must be impossible.Land contracts – sale of land or creating an interest in land (e.g. lease over 1 year).Executor/Administrator Promise – a promise to pay an estate’s debt from personal funds of the Executor or Administrator.6) Sale of goods for $500 or more.UCC SOF Exceptions:▪ Merchant’s Confirmatory Memorandum –contract between two merchants, a writing signed only by the party enforcing it, and other party did not promptly object within 10 days.▪ Goods Accepted or Paid For – but only applies for those goods, not the whole contract.▪ Custom Made Goods – seller made substantial start and the goods are not suitable for sale in the ordinary course of seller’s business.CONTRACTS 43▪ Judicial Admission/Acknowledgment – an admission during a judicial proceeding.Common Law SOF Exceptions:▪ Full Performance.▪ Partial Performance in Land Contracts – need two of the following: (i) made payment for land, (ii) took possession of land, and/or (iii) made valuable improvements to land.▪ Judicial Acknowledgement – party admits to the contract in pleadings or testimony.▪ Estoppel – reasonable & foreseeable detrimental reliance (some jurisdictions).

Answer 17

Material Breach vs. Minor Breach (Common Law)Material Breach (Substantial Performance Doctrine)– Occurs when a party DOES NOT render substantial performance.− A material breach excuses the non-breaching party’s performance. Minor Breach – DOES NOT excuse performance.− But, the non-breaching party may bring a separate action for damages.CONTRACTS 45To determine if the breach is material, courts analyze: 1) Extent of performance; 2) Adequacy of compensation for loss to the nonbreaching party; 3) Hardship; 4) Likelihood the breaching party will cure; and 5) Whether the breach was intentional.Delayed Performance – A party’s failure to perform by a specified time is typically NOT a material breach unless:a) It significantly deprives the other party of the benefit of the contract; ORb) Time of the Essence Clause – contract mandates completed performance by a specific date (requires “time of the essence” or similar language). ④ Substantial Performance _party's basic duty is to substantially perform on the contract - a minor breach by one party doesn't excuse the performance of the other party - material breach determined by factors ⑥ extent of performance ② adequacy of compensation ③ hardship ④ likelihood of core ⑤ intentional failure to complete performance by a specified time isn't material - express -ouplied - exceptions ①time is of the essence ② substantially deprives other party of contract's value

Answer 18

Obligation of Good Faith & Fair Dealing – Every contract contains an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing to act honestly and fairly.− UCC → Requires (1) honesty in fact, AND (2) observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.

Answer 19

**Equitable Defenses to Specific Performance** Specific performance, as an equitable remedy, is subject to the discretion of the court. This means that even if the usual requirements for specific performance are met (valid contract, inadequate legal remedy, etc.), the court may still refuse to grant it if one of these equitable defenses applies. These defenses are rooted in fairness and the principle that "he who seeks equity must do equity." Here's a breakdown of each defense: **1. Laches** - Laches is an unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in asserting their rights, and this delay has prejudiced the defendant. It's not just about any delay; it's about a delay that makes it unfair to now grant specific performance. * Key Elements: * Unreasonable Delay: The plaintiff waited an unreasonable amount of time before bringing the lawsuit, given the circumstances. There's no fixed time limit; it's judged on a case-by-case basis. What's reasonable in one situation might be unreasonable in another. Consider factors like: * The plaintiff's knowledge of the breach. * Any excuses for the delay (e.g., plaintiff was unaware of the breach, was actively negotiating, etc.). * The nature of the contract and the subject matter. * Prejudice to the Defendant: The delay must have caused harm to the defendant. This is the most crucial element. Examples of prejudice: * Loss of Evidence: Witnesses have died or become unavailable, documents have been lost, memories have faded. * Change in Position: The defendant, relying on the plaintiff's inaction, has taken steps that they wouldn't have taken if they had known the plaintiff would sue. For example, the defendant may have sold the property to someone else (though see the BFP defense below), invested significant money in improving the property, or entered into other contracts based on the assumption that the original contract was off. * Economic Fluctuations: Significant changes in market value could make specific performance unfair to the defendant (though this alone is often not enough). * Example: A buyer agrees to purchase a unique piece of land. The seller breaches. The buyer knows about the breach but waits five years to sue for specific performance. During that time, the seller, believing the deal was off, made significant improvements to the land, increasing its value. The court might deny specific performance based on laches because the buyer's delay prejudiced the seller. * Contrast with Statute of Limitations: Laches is different from the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is a legal defense based on a fixed time period set by law. Laches is an equitable defense based on fairness and prejudice, and it can bar relief even if the lawsuit is filed within the statute of limitations. **2. Unclean Hands** - The "unclean hands" doctrine prevents a party from obtaining equitable relief (like specific performance) if they have engaged in wrongful conduct related to the transaction being litigated. The maxim is "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands." * Key Elements: * Wrongful Conduct: The plaintiff's conduct must be considered unfair, unethical, fraudulent, or otherwise improper. This could include misrepresentation, bad faith, breach of a fiduciary duty, or even a breach of the same contract. * Related to the Transaction: The wrongdoing must be directly connected to the specific contract or transaction at issue in the lawsuit. General bad character or unrelated misconduct is not sufficient. The dirty hands must have "dirtied" the transaction in question. * It does not need to be illegal conduct. * Example: A buyer secretly colludes with the seller's agent to get a lower price on a house, misrepresenting their financial situation to the seller. When the seller discovers the deception and refuses to close, the buyer sues for specific performance. The court would likely deny specific performance based on the buyer's unclean hands (the collusion and misrepresentation). * Distinguish from in pari delicto: In pari delicto is a related, but distinct, defense. It applies when both parties are equally at fault. Unclean hands can apply even if the defendant's conduct was worse, as long as the plaintiff's conduct was sufficiently related to the transaction and improper. **3. Sale to a Bona Fide Purchaser (BFP)** - If the subject matter of the contract (e.g., the real estate or unique good) has been sold to a bona fide purchaser (BFP), specific performance is generally unavailable against the original breaching party. This is because the court cannot force the breaching party to convey something they no longer own. * Key Elements of a BFP: * Purchaser for Value: The BFP must have given something of value in exchange for the property. This doesn't have to be the full market value, but it must be more than a nominal amount (e.g., not a gift). * Good Faith: The BFP must have acted in good faith, meaning they were unaware of the prior contract and the plaintiff's claim to the property. This is a subjective standard – what did the BFP actually know? * Without Notice: The BFP must have been without notice of the prior contract. Notice can be: * Actual Notice: The BFP had direct knowledge of the prior contract. * Constructive Notice: The prior contract was properly recorded (e.g., a recorded real estate contract), putting the BFP on notice even if they didn't actually see the recording. * Inquiry Notice: The BFP had knowledge of facts that would cause a reasonable person to inquire further, and that inquiry would have revealed the prior contract. * Example: Seller agrees to sell Blackacre to Buyer A. Before closing, Seller, in breach of the contract with Buyer A, sells Blackacre to Buyer B. Buyer B pays a fair price and has no knowledge of the prior contract with Buyer A. Buyer A sues Seller for specific performance. The court will likely deny specific performance because Buyer B is a BFP. Buyer A's remedy would be damages against Seller. * Effect: If a BFP exists, the original buyer's remedy is limited to damages against the original seller. They cannot get the property back. **Important Considerations for All Equitable Defenses:** * Burden of Proof: The defendant (the party resisting specific performance) has the burden of proving the elements of the equitable defense. * Discretionary: The application of these defenses is highly discretionary. The court will weigh the equities of the situation and consider the overall fairness of granting or denying specific performance. * Interrelation: These defenses can sometimes overlap. For example, a delay might contribute to both laches and a sale to a BFP. By understanding these equitable defenses, you'll be better prepared to analyze fact patterns involving specific performance on the bar exam. Remember to look for facts that suggest unreasonable delay, prejudice to the defendant, wrongful conduct by the plaintiff, or a sale to a third party who meets the BFP requirements.

Answer 20

Specific Performance: A Deeper Dive 1. The Core Principle: Inadequacy of Legal Remedy * Money Damages as the Default: The standard remedy for breach of contract is money damages, specifically expectation damages. The goal is to put the non-breaching party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. * When Money Isn't Enough: Specific performance is an extraordinary remedy, granted only when money damages are inadequate to compensate the non-breaching party. This means that a monetary award won't truly make the non-breaching party "whole." * The "Inadequacy" Test: This is a fact-specific inquiry. Courts consider: * Uniqueness of the Subject Matter: This is the most common reason for inadequacy. If the subject matter of the contract is unique, money can't buy a perfect substitute. * Difficulty in Calculating Damages: If damages are highly speculative or uncertain, specific performance might be appropriate. However, mere difficulty isn't enough; damages must be extremely difficult to determine. * Insolvency of the Defendant: If the breaching party is insolvent or likely to become insolvent, a money judgment might be worthless. Specific performance, if possible, could provide a more effective remedy. * Sentimental Value (Limited): While sentimental value alone usually isn't enough, it can be a factor, especially when combined with other elements of uniqueness. 2. Specific Applications and Limitations * Land Sale Contracts: * Presumptive Uniqueness: Land is always considered unique. Each parcel of land has a unique location, even if it appears identical to neighboring parcels. This is a long-standing rule in property law. * Mutuality (Weakening): Historically, courts required "mutuality of remedy," meaning that specific performance had to be available to both parties. This meant that if the seller could get specific performance (forcing the buyer to buy), the buyer should also be able to get specific performance (forcing the seller to sell). The modern trend is to de-emphasize strict mutuality, focusing instead on whether the remedy is fair and practical in the specific case. * Marketable Title: A buyer seeking specific performance must show they are ready, willing, and able to perform (e.g., have financing secured). The seller must be able to convey marketable title – a title free from reasonable doubt about its validity. * Rare or Unique Goods: * UCC 2-716: The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs contracts for the sale of goods, allows specific performance "where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances." * "Unique" Under the UCC: This is broader than just "one-of-a-kind." It includes goods that are: * Actually Unique: Antiques, custom-made items, works of art. * Commercially Unique: Goods in short supply due to market conditions (as in the example of gasoline during an embargo), making it difficult or impossible to obtain a substitute. The key is that the buyer can't reasonably cover (find a replacement) in the market. * Output and Requirements Contracts: The UCC often allows specific performance of output contracts (where a seller agrees to sell all of its output to a buyer) and requirements contracts (where a buyer agrees to buy all of its requirements from a seller), as these often involve unique or specialized goods. * Contracts for Services: * General Rule: NO Specific Performance: Courts almost never grant specific performance of personal service contracts. * Reasons: * Involuntary Servitude: The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude. Forcing someone to work against their will raises constitutional concerns. * Difficulty of Supervision: Courts are reluctant to get involved in the ongoing supervision of a personal service relationship. It's difficult to ensure quality performance and to monitor compliance. * Personal Nature of the Relationship: Forcing a specific person to work with another specific person can create friction and undermine the effectiveness of the service. 3. Injunctions as an Alternative (for Service Contracts) * Negative Injunctions: While a court won't force someone to perform a service contract, it may issue a negative injunction preventing them from working for a competitor. This is more likely when: * Unique Services: The services are truly rare or unique, meaning the employee possesses special skills or knowledge that can't easily be replaced. * Express Contractual Provision: The contract contains a clause prohibiting the employee from working for a competitor (a covenant not to compete). * Example: A famous opera singer breaches a contract to sing at a particular opera house. The court won't force her to sing there (specific performance), but it might issue an injunction preventing her from singing at a competing opera house for the duration of the contract. 4. Covenants Not to Compete (CNCs) * Definition: A CNC is a contractual promise by an employee (or seller of a business) not to compete with the employer (or buyer) for a certain period of time and within a certain geographic area. * Enforceability: Courts will enforce CNCs if they are reasonable. Reasonableness is a multi-factor test: * Legitimate Interest: The CNC must protect a legitimate business interest of the party seeking to enforce it. This could include: * Trade Secrets: Protecting confidential information. * Customer Relationships: Preventing the employee from taking customers they developed while working for the employer. * Goodwill (for sale of business): Protecting the value of the business being sold. * Reasonable Scope: * Geographic Scope: The area restricted must be no larger than necessary to protect the legitimate interest. It usually cannot be broader than the employer's (or the sold business's) actual customer base. * Duration: The time restriction must be reasonable, typically no more than one or two years, although longer periods are sometimes upheld for the sale of a business. The appropriate length depends on the industry and the nature of the interest being protected. * No Harm to the Public: The CNC cannot unduly harm the public. For example, a CNC that would prevent the only doctor in a small town from practicing medicine would likely be unenforceable. * Specific Performance of CNCs: If a CNC meets the reasonableness test, a court may grant specific performance, meaning it will issue an injunction enforcing the non-compete clause. This is a form of negative specific performance. Key Takeaways * Specific performance is a powerful remedy, but it's used sparingly. * Land is always unique; rare/unique goods can be, depending on the circumstances. * Service contracts generally don't get specific performance, but negative injunctions are possible. * CNCs are enforceable if reasonable in scope and protect a legitimate interest.

Answer 21

**Nonmonetary Remedies** 1. Specific Performance * Definition: A court order forcing a breaching party to perform their contractual obligations. * Availability: * Land: Always available for land sale contracts (land is unique). * Unique Goods: Available for rare or unique goods (e.g., antiques, goods in short supply). * Services: Not available for personal service contracts (enforcement problems, involuntary servitude). * Injunction as Alternative: A court may prevent a breaching employee from working for a competitor if their services are unique and the employment contract had a valid non-compete. * Covenant Not to Compete, to be enforceable: * Services are Unique * Reasonable need to protect a legitimate interest. * Reasonable Geopgraphic scope and duration. * Must not harm the public. * Equitable Defenses: * Laches: Unreasonable delay by plaintiff, prejudicing defendant. * Unclean Hands: Plaintiff's own wrongdoing related to the contract. * Sale to Bona Fide Purchaser: Subject matter sold to an innocent third party for value. 2. Buyer's Nonmonetary Remedies (UCC) * Cancellation: If goods are non-conforming, buyer can cancel the contract. * Replevin (Getting the Goods): * Prepayment & Seller Insolvency: Buyer can replevy identified goods if: * Buyer made at least part payment, and * Seller becomes insolvent within 10 days of the first payment, or * Goods were for personal/family/household use. * Buyer must tender any remaining balance. * Inability to Cover: Buyer can replevy undelivered, identified goods if they can't reasonably obtain substitutes. * Specific Performance: Available for unique goods or "in other proper circumstances" (may be ordered even before goods are identified). 3. Seller's Nonmonetary Remedies (UCC) * Withholding Goods: * Non-Payment: Seller can withhold if payment is due on/before delivery and not made. * Insolvency: Seller can withhold if selling on credit and discovers buyer's insolvency before delivery (unless buyer pays cash). * Recovering Goods: * From Insolvent Buyer: Seller can reclaim goods received by buyer on credit while insolvent if demand is made within 10 days of receipt (exception: written misrepresentation of solvency). * From Bailee (Stoppage in Transit): * Insolvency: Seller can stop delivery if buyer is insolvent (unless buyer pays cash). * Breach (Large Shipments): Seller can stop delivery of large shipments if buyer breaches or seller has right to withhold performance. * Forcing Goods on Buyer (Limited): Seller can only force goods on buyer (sue for price) if unable to resell at a reasonable price. 4. Right to Demand Assurances (UCC) * If reasonable grounds for insecurity about other party's performance, a party can demand in writing adequate assurances. * Performance can be suspended until assurances are received. * Failure to provide adequate assurances within a reasonable time (max 30 days) can be treated as repudiation. * What constitutes "adequate assurance" is fact-specific.

Answer 22

Expectation Damages The standard measure of damages is expectation damages. Expectation damages seek to place the non-breaching party in the position they would have been in had the contract been fully performed, giving them the 'benefit of the bargain.' This is often calculated as the difference between the value of the promised performance and the value of the performance actually received, or the cost of obtaining substitute performance. The non-breaching party has a duty to mitigate damages, taking reasonable steps to minimize their losses. Damages must also be proven with reasonable certainty and not be speculative. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Benefit of the Bargain": This phrase is crucial. It encapsulates the core concept. * "As if the contract had been performed": This clarifies the goal of expectation damages. * "Substitute Performance" or "Contract Price vs. Market Price": Mention the common calculation methods. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * Mitigation: If the fact pattern involves (or should involve) mitigation, mention the duty to mitigate. * Certainty: If the damages seem speculative, mention the requirement of reasonable certainty. * Foreseeability: If consequential damages are at issue, mention the foreseeability requirement (though this would usually be part of a separate rule statement for consequential damages). * Reliance Damages: If expectation damages are clearly not calculable, briefly mention reliance damages as an alternative.

Answer 23

Incidental Damages Incidental damages are those costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the non-breaching party as a direct and proximate result of the breach of contract. These typically include costs such as inspection, storage, transportation, and other expenses directly associated with handling non-conforming goods or finding a substitute performance. To be recoverable, incidental damages must be reasonable in amount and directly related to the breach. They are intended to cover the immediate 'cleanup' costs associated with the breach, not lost profits or other indirect losses. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Reasonably Incurred": This is essential. It limits the scope of recoverable expenses. * "Direct Consequence" or "Directly Caused": This emphasizes the causal link between the breach and the expenses. * Examples (briefly): Mentioning a few common examples (inspection, storage, transportation) helps clarify the concept. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * UCC: If the fact pattern involves a sale of goods, definitely mention the UCC. * Buyer/Seller: If the facts clearly involve a buyer or seller, specify which types of incidental damages are relevant. * Distinction from Consequential Damages: If the essay question also involves consequential damages, it's helpful to briefly distinguish between the two. Remember to apply the rule to the specific facts of your hypothetical. For example: "Here, the buyer's costs of storing the rejected widgets and shipping them back to the seller are likely recoverable as incidental damages because they were reasonably incurred as a direct result of the seller's breach."

Answer 24

Consequential Damages Consequential damages are indirect losses suffered by the non-breaching party as a result of the breach, stemming from their specific circumstances. Unlike expectation or incidental damages, consequential damages are only recoverable if they meet a two-part test: (1) Foreseeability: The damages must have been reasonably foreseeable to the breaching party at the time the contract was made; and (2) Causation: The breach must have been a substantial factor in causing the damages. The breaching party must have known or had reason to know of the special circumstances giving rise to these damages. Further, consequential damages must be proven with reasonable certainty and are subject to the non-breaching party's duty to mitigate. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Indirect Losses" or "Arising from Particular Circumstances": This distinguishes consequential damages from direct damages. * "Foreseeability": This is the crucial element. Emphasize that the damages must have been foreseeable at the time of contract formation. * "Reasonable Person" or "Knew or Had Reason to Know": Clarify the objective nature of the foreseeability test. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Lost Profits": If lost profits are at issue, mention them as a common example. * "Causation": If causation is a contested issue, explicitly state the causation requirement. * "Certainty": If the damages seem speculative, mention the requirement of reasonable certainty. * "Mitigation": If mitigation is relevant, mention the duty to mitigate. * UCC: If the fact pattern involves a sale of goods, definitely use Option 4 and mention the UCC's limitation to buyers. As always, the most important thing is to apply the rule to the facts of your hypothetical. Don't just state the rule; explain why the damages in the scenario are (or are not) foreseeable, caused by the breach, and proven with sufficient certainty. For example: "Here, the lost profits from the cancelled concert are likely recoverable as consequential damages because the seller was specifically informed about the concert and the buyer's reliance on the timely delivery of the shirts. This made the lost profits a foreseeable consequence of a breach."

Answer 25

Remedies – Reliance Damages Reliance damages aim to restore the non-breaching party to the position they occupied before entering into the contract. They are awarded when expectation damages are too speculative or cannot be proven with reasonable certainty. Reliance damages compensate the plaintiff for expenses incurred in preparation for performance or in actual performance, to the extent that those expenses were reasonably foreseeable and incurred in reliance on the contract. The goal is to prevent unjust enrichment of the breaching party and to compensate the non-breaching party for losses suffered due to their reliance. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Position before the contract" or "Had the contract never been formed": This is the defining characteristic of reliance damages. It contrasts sharply with expectation damages. * "Expenses Incurred in Reliance": This highlights the type of losses that are recoverable. * "Reasonable" These expenses must be reasonable Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Expectation Damages Too Speculative": Mention this if it's the reason reliance damages are being considered. * "Out-of-Pocket Expenses": Use this phrase to describe the types of losses. * Examples: Briefly mentioning examples (e.g., preparation costs, money spent performing) can be helpful. * Unjust Enrichment: You can include that reliance damages can prevent this. Applying the Rule: The most important part is the application. Don't just state the rule; explain why the expenses in the hypothetical were incurred in reliance on the contract and why expectation damages are (or are not) too speculative. For example: "Here, the lost profits from the new business venture are too speculative to calculate with reasonable certainty. Therefore, the plaintiff may seek reliance damages. The $5,000 spent on advertising and the $2,000 spent on renting office space are likely recoverable as reliance damages because they were out-of-pocket expenses incurred in direct reliance on the contract, and they would put the non-breaching party in the position they would have been in had the contract never been formed." By choosing the appropriate rule statement and, crucially, applying it correctly to the facts, you'll demonstrate a solid understanding of reliance damages on the bar exam.

Answer 26

Remedies – Restitution Damages Restitution damages are designed to prevent unjust enrichment by requiring the breaching party to return any benefit they received from the non-breaching party. The measure of restitution is the value of the benefit conferred, which may be calculated as either (1) the reasonable value of the services or property provided, or (2) the extent to which the breaching party's property has increased in value because of the performance. Restitution may be available even when a contract is unenforceable or when expectation and reliance damages are inadequate. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Unjust Enrichment": This is the central concept. The breaching party should not be allowed to profit from their breach. * "Benefit Conferred": This clarifies what is being measured – the value received by the breaching party. * "Value of the Benefit" Clarifies the amount of damages Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Reasonable Value" or "Increase in Value": Mention the methods of calculating the benefit. * "Unenforceable Contract" or "Voidable Contract": Restitution is often relevant in these situations. * Comparison to Expectation/Reliance: If the essay question involves multiple damage types, briefly distinguish restitution. Applying the Rule: Crucially, apply the rule to the facts. Explain what benefit the breaching party received and why it would be unjust for them to retain it. For example: "Here, even though the contract is unenforceable due to the Statute of Frauds, the painter may still be entitled to restitution damages. The homeowner received the benefit of a newly painted house. It would be unjust for the homeowner to retain this benefit without paying for it. The painter can recover the reasonable value of his services, which is likely the market rate for house painting in that area, even if the contract price was higher or lower. The value conferred is the focus." By selecting the appropriate rule statement and applying it meticulously, you'll demonstrate a clear understanding of restitution damages on the bar exam.

Answer 27

Remedies – Punitive Damages Punitive damages, which are designed to punish and deter egregious conduct, are generally not recoverable in breach of contract actions because the purpose of contract damages is to compensate the non-breaching party, not to punish the breaching party. A limited exception may apply if the breach of contract also constitutes an independent tort that allows for punitive damages, and the conduct is sufficiently egregious, malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent. The plaintiff must prove the elements of both the breach of contract and the independent tort." Key Elements to Always Include: * "Generally Not Recoverable": This is the most important point. Punitive damages are the exception, not the rule, in contract law. * "Punish and Deter": Briefly state the purpose of punitive damages to highlight why they're usually inappropriate in contract cases. * "Independent Tort": Mention the crucial exception – the breach must also be a tort. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * Specific Torts: If the fact pattern involves a specific tort (like fraud), name it. * Egregious Conduct: Emphasize the high standard of culpability required (malicious, oppressive, etc.). * Burden of Proof: If the jurisdiction's standard for punitive damages is clear, mention it (often "clear and convincing evidence"). * "Bad Faith": In some jurisdictions, bad faith breach of contract (especially in insurance contexts) might support punitive damages. Applying the Rule: The application is crucial. Explain why the facts do or do not support punitive damages. For example: "Here, although the seller intentionally breached the contract, there is no evidence of an independent tort. The seller's actions, while a breach, do not rise to the level of fraud, malice, or oppression. Therefore, punitive damages are not recoverable." Or, conversely: "Here, the seller's deliberate misrepresentation of the product's condition constitutes both a breach of contract and the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation. Because the seller acted with intentional deceit and the buyer relied on that deceit to their detriment, punitive damages may be recoverable, in addition to compensatory damages, if the buyer can prove the fraud by clear and convincing evidence." By clearly stating the rule and applying it precisely, you will demonstrate a strong understanding of the limited role of punitive damages in contract law.

Answer 28

Remedies – Liquidated Damages Liquidated damages clauses allow parties to agree in advance on the amount of damages payable in the event of a breach. Courts will enforce such clauses if they meet a two-part test: (1) at the time of contracting, the stipulated amount was a reasonable forecast of the potential damages from a breach; and (2) the actual damages resulting from a breach would be difficult or impossible to calculate accurately. If the clause fails either part of this test, it is considered an unenforceable penalty. A clause that operates as a penalty is void, and the non-breaching party is limited to recovering their actual damages. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Liquidated Damages Clause": Define what it is. * "Reasonable Forecast": This is a critical element. The amount must be reasonable at the time of contracting. * "Difficult to Calculate": This is the other crucial requirement. The damages must be uncertain or hard to prove. * "At the Time of Contracting": A very very very important detail. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Penalty": Mention that a clause deemed a penalty is unenforceable. * "Actual Damages": Explain what happens if the clause is a penalty (the plaintiff must prove actual damages). * Burden of Proof: If relevant, state who has the burden to prove the clause is (or is not) a penalty. Applying the Rule: As always, the application is crucial. Analyze both prongs of the test in light of the facts. For example: "Here, the contract included a liquidated damages clause of $10,000 for any delay in completing the construction project. At the time of contracting, it was difficult to precisely estimate the potential losses from a delay, as the homeowner's rental costs and lost business opportunities were uncertain. $10,000 appears to be a reasonable forecast of those potential losses, given the overall contract price and the nature of the project. Therefore, the clause is likely enforceable." Or, conversely: "Here, the contract for the sale of a used car for $5,000 included a liquidated damages clause of $10,000 for any breach by the buyer. This amount is double the contract price and is clearly not a reasonable forecast of the seller's likely damages. The seller's actual damages (the difference between the contract price and the resale value) would be relatively easy to calculate. Therefore, the clause is likely an unenforceable penalty." By clearly stating the rule and applying it thoughtfully to the facts, you'll demonstrate a solid understanding of liquidated damages on the bar exam. Remember to analyze both prongs of the test – reasonableness of the forecast and difficulty of calculation – and to consider the facts from the perspective of the time of contracting.

Answer 29

Remedies – Specific Performance Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels a party to perform their contractual obligations as promised. It is an exception to the general rule that contract remedies are limited to monetary damages. Specific performance is granted only when: (1) a valid contract exists; (2) the contract terms are clear and definite; (3) the plaintiff has performed or is ready to perform; (4) legal remedies (monetary damages) are inadequate; and (5) enforcement is feasible. Monetary damages are typically considered inadequate when the subject matter of the contract is unique, such as real estate, rare goods, or items with sentimental value. Specific performance is generally not available for personal service contracts, due to concerns about involuntary servitude and difficulty of enforcement. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Equitable Remedy": This distinguishes it from legal remedies (damages). * "Compels Performance": This is the essence of the remedy – forcing the party to do what they promised. * "Monetary Damages Inadequate": This is the most important requirement. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Unique" Subject Matter: If the contract involves land or a unique item, mention this. * "Personal Services": If the contract is for personal services, state that specific performance is generally unavailable. * "Feasibility": If there are practical problems with enforcing performance, mention this. * "Definite Terms," "Valid Contract," "Plaintiff Ready to Perform": These are general requirements for any contract remedy, but are particularly important for specific performance. Applying the Rule: The application is crucial. Explain why monetary damages are (or are not) adequate in the specific fact pattern. For example: * Here, the contract is for the sale of a specific parcel of land. Because land is considered unique, monetary damages are inadequate to compensate the buyer for the seller's breach. The buyer wants this specific property, and no amount of money can perfectly replace it. Therefore, specific performance is likely an appropriate remedy. * Here, the contract is for the singer to perform at a concert. Specific performance is generally not available for personal service contracts. Forcing the singer to perform against their will would raise issues of involuntary servitude, and it would be difficult for the court to supervise and ensure a quality performance. Therefore, the concert promoter is likely limited to monetary damages. By stating the rule clearly and applying it thoughtfully to the facts, you will demonstrate a strong understanding of specific performance. Remember to focus on the inadequacy of monetary damages as the key justification for this extraordinary remedy.

Answer 30

Remedies – Rescission Rescission is an equitable remedy that cancels a contract and restores the parties to their positions before the contract was formed. It is available when a contract is voidable due to defects in formation, such as mutual mistake, fraud in the inducement, duress, or undue influence. In some cases, a material breach may also justify rescission. The party seeking rescission must generally act promptly upon discovering the grounds for rescission and must offer to return any benefits received under the contract (restitution). Rescission is distinct from termination for breach, which accepts the contract's existence but ends future performance obligations. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Equitable Remedy": This distinguishes it from legal remedies. * "Cancels the Contract": This is the core effect of rescission. * "Restores Pre-Contract Positions": This describes the goal of the remedy. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * Specific Grounds: Mention the relevant ground for rescission (e.g., mistake, fraud, duress). * "Voidable": Emphasize that rescission applies to voidable, not void, contracts. * "Restitution": Mention the requirement for each party to return benefits received. * "Prompt Action": If relevant, note that the party seeking rescission must act promptly. * Distinguish from Termination: If both concepts are at issue, differentiate rescission from termination for breach. Applying the Rule: Explain why the facts justify rescission and what the consequences would be. For example: * Here, the contract is voidable due to mutual mistake. Both parties were mistaken about the fundamental fact that the painting was an original. Because the mistake goes to the very essence of the contract, rescission is an appropriate remedy. The buyer must return the painting, and the seller must return the purchase price, restoring both parties to their pre-contract positions." * Here, the buyer's claim for rescission based on fraud is likely to succeed. The seller knowingly misrepresented the car's mileage, which is a material fact that induced the buyer to enter the contract. The buyer acted promptly upon discovering the fraud. Therefore, the buyer can rescind the contract, return the car, and recover the purchase price. Remember to focus on the grounds for rescission, the requirement of restoring the parties to their original positions, and the distinction between a voidable and a void contract.

Answer 31

Remedies – Reformation Reformation is an equitable remedy that allows a court to rewrite a written contract to conform to the parties' actual agreement. It is a limited remedy, used cautiously to avoid undermining the sanctity of written contracts. Reformation is available only when there is clear and convincing evidence of: (1) a valid prior agreement; (2) a written instrument that fails to accurately reflect that agreement; and (3) a ground for reformation, such as mutual mistake, fraud, or, in some jurisdictions, unilateral mistake coupled with inequitable conduct by the non-mistaken party. Reformation is not available to create a new agreement or to impose terms to which the parties never agreed. It is used only to correct errors in the writing, not to change the underlying bargain. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Equitable Remedy": Distinguishes it from legal remedies. * "Modify a Written Contract": This is the core function of reformation. * "Reflect the Parties' True Agreement": This is the purpose of the remedy. * "Mistake" or "Fraud": Mention the typical grounds for reformation. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Mutual Mistake" vs. "Unilateral Mistake": Distinguish between these if relevant. * "Clear and Convincing Evidence": Mention the heightened burden of proof. * "Prior Agreement": Emphasize that reformation corrects the writing, not the underlying agreement. * "Inequitable Conduct": If unilateral mistake is involved, mention this requirement. Applying the Rule: Explain what the true agreement was, how the writing differs from that agreement, and why the facts support reformation. * Here, both parties intended the contract to state a price of $10,000, but due to a typographical error, the written contract states $1,000. This is a clear case of mutual mistake. Because there is clear and convincing evidence of the parties' true agreement (the agreed-upon price of 10,000), the court can reform the contract to correct the typographical error and reflect the $10,000 price." * Here, the buyer claims that the seller promised a warranty, but the written contract contains no such warranty. There is no evidence of mutual mistake or fraud. The buyer's mere assertion of an oral promise, contradicted by the written contract, is insufficient to justify reformation. The court will not rewrite the contract to add a term to which the parties did not agree in writing. Remember to focus on the difference between the written contract and the parties' actual agreement, and the high burden of proof required to justify altering the written instrument.

Answer 32

Remedies – Doctrine of Economic Waste The doctrine of economic waste limits the award of cost of completion damages in construction contract cases. When a contractor has substantially performed in good faith, but defects exist, and the cost of correcting those defects is 'clearly disproportionate' to the 'probable loss in value' to the owner, the court may award damages based on the diminution in market value caused by the breach. Factors considered include the nature and extent of the defects, the willfulness of the breach, the purpose of the contract, and the relationship between the cost of completion and the overall value of the project. The goal is to avoid both unjust enrichment of the owner and unreasonable economic waste. R/S-2 § 348(2) Key Elements to Always Include: * "Construction Contract": This doctrine is most commonly applied in this context. * "Cost of Completion vs. Diminution in Value": This is the core comparison. * "Disproportionate" or "Grossly Disproportionate": This highlights the key requirement for the doctrine to apply. * Substantial performance and good faith Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Good Faith": If the contractor's breach was not willful, emphasize this. * "Substantial Performance": If the contractor has substantially performed, this strengthens the argument for economic waste. * "Unjust Enrichment": Mentioning this reinforces the rationale behind the doctrine. * Restatement Reference: If you have time and space, citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 348(2) adds authority. Applying the Rule: Explain why the cost of completion is (or is not) disproportionate to the diminution in value. * Here, the contractor installed the wrong type of windows, but the windows installed are of comparable quality and appearance. The cost to remove and replace the windows with the correct type would be $20,000, but the difference in market value between the house with the correct windows and the house with the installed windows is only $2,000. Because the contractor acted in good faith and the cost of completion is grossly disproportionate to the diminution in value, the doctrine of economic waste likely applies. The owner would be entitled to $2,000 in damages, not $20,000. * Here, the contractor used substandard materials that compromised the structural integrity of the building. While the cost to repair the structural defects is high ($100,000), the diminution in value is also substantial (the building is unsafe and worth significantly less). Moreover, the contractor's use of substandard materials appears to have been intentional. Because the defect is structural, and the breach was likely willful, the doctrine of economic waste likely does not apply. The owner is entitled to the full $100,000 cost of repair. Remember to always tie it back to the core principle of preventing unreasonable economic loss and unjust enrichment.

Answer 33

Remedies – Mitigation Requirement A non-breaching party has a duty to mitigate damages, meaning they must take reasonable steps to minimize the losses flowing from the breach. This duty does not require extraordinary or unreasonable efforts, nor does it require the non-breaching party to incur undue risk or expense. Examples of reasonable mitigation efforts include seeking substitute employment after a wrongful termination, attempting to resell goods after a buyer's breach, or making reasonable repairs to prevent further damage. The breaching party has the burden of proving that the non-breaching party failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate. If the breaching party meets this burden, the damages will be reduced by the amount that could have been avoided through reasonable mitigation." Key Elements to Always Include: * "Duty to Mitigate" or "Reasonable Steps to Minimize Losses": This is the core concept. * "Non-Breaching Party": Clarify who has the duty. * "Reduce Damages": State the consequence of failing to mitigate. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Reasonable Efforts": Emphasize that the duty is not absolute; only reasonable steps are required. * "Burden of Proof": State that the breaching party has the burden to prove failure to mitigate. * Specific Examples: If the fact pattern involves specific actions (or inactions), mention relevant examples of mitigation (e.g., seeking a new job, reselling goods). Applying the Rule: Explain what the non-breaching party did (or did not do) and why it was (or was not) reasonable under the circumstances. * Here, after the buyer breached the contract to purchase the custom-made widgets, the seller made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages by advertising the widgets for sale to other potential buyers. The seller eventually sold them at a lower price. The seller's damages will be reduced by the amount received from the resale, reflecting their mitigation efforts. * Here, after being wrongfully terminated, the employee made no effort to find a new job. She did not apply for any positions, did not update her resume, and did not contact any potential employers. The employer can argue that she failed to mitigate her damages. Her recoverable lost wages will likely be reduced by the amount she could have earned had she made reasonable efforts to find comparable employment. * Regarding unreasonable efforts: The buyer breached the contract to buy wheat. The seller could resell the wheat at a slightly lower price immediately, but instead chose to store the wheat for six months hoping the price would increase, incurring significant storage costs. The seller may not recover these storage costs since choosing to hold the wheat for 6 months may not have been a reasonable attempt to mitigate damages. Remember to emphasize the reasonableness of the non-breaching party's actions (or inactions) in light of the specific circumstances.

Answer 34

Remedies – Certainty Requirement Damages for breach of contract must be proven with reasonable certainty. This requirement means that the existence of damages and their amount must be established with sufficient evidence to allow for a reasonable, non-speculative determination. While mathematical precision is not required, the evidence must provide a basis for a fair approximation. Lost profits, especially for new businesses, are often difficult to prove with sufficient certainty, although modern courts may relax the 'new business rule' if reliable evidence (e.g., market analysis, comparable businesses) is available. The certainty requirement is also linked to the duty to mitigate; a plaintiff cannot recover damages that could have been avoided through reasonable efforts, and speculative attempts to prove unmitigated damages will fail for lack of certainty. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Reasonable Certainty": This is the core standard. * "Not Speculative" or "Not Conjectural": This clarifies what isn't allowed. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Lost Profits": If lost profits are at issue, mention them specifically, as they are often scrutinized for certainty. * "New Business Rule": If the case involves a new business's lost profits, mention this rule and its potential relaxation. * "Mathematical Precision Not Required": This clarifies that the standard is not impossibly high. * "Reasonable Basis" or "Fair Approximation": These phrases explain what is required. * Mitigation Connection: If relevant, briefly link certainty to the duty to mitigate. Applying the Rule: Explain why the damages in the fact pattern are (or are not) sufficiently certain. * Here, the lost profits from the established restaurant are likely provable with reasonable certainty. The restaurant has a consistent history of profitability, and the plaintiff can provide financial records and expert testimony to project the profits lost due to the breach. This provides a reasonable basis for calculating the loss, even if it's not mathematically precise. * Here, the lost profits claimed by the new, unproven business are likely too speculative to recover. The business has no track record of profitability, and the projections are based solely on the owner's optimistic, but unsubstantiated, estimates. There is no reliable evidence to provide a reasonable basis for calculating lost profits; they are based on conjecture, not certainty." * Or, relating to mitigation: The plaintiff claims lost profits for a full year after the breach. However, they made no effort to mitigate their damages by finding a replacement supplier. Because the plaintiff could have reasonably mitigated their losses, and any profits beyond a reasonable mitigation period are entirely speculative due to their inaction, the claimed lost profits for the entire year lack the required certainty. Be particularly careful with lost profits, and always consider the connection to mitigation.

Answer 35

Remedies – Foreseeability Requirement The foreseeability requirement limits the recovery of consequential damages to those losses that were reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was entered into. The test is objective: would a reasonable person in the position of the breaching party, with the knowledge they had or should have had at the time, have foreseen that these types of damages were a probable result of a breach? The breaching party must have known, or had reason to know, of the special circumstances that would give rise to these damages. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Consequential Damages": Make it clear that foreseeability is a requirement specifically for consequential damages. * "Reasonably Foreseeable": Use this key phrase. * "At the Time of Contract Formation": This is absolutely critical. Foreseeability is judged at the time the contract is made, not later. * "Objective Test" or "Reasonable Person": Emphasize that it's not about the actual knowledge of the breaching party, but what a reasonable person should have known. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * Hadley v. Baxendale: If you have space and it's relevant, mentioning this seminal case adds authority. * "Knew or Had Reason to Know": This phrase clarifies the objective standard. * "Special Circumstances": If the damages arise from the non-breaching party's unique situation, mention this. * Examples: Providing a brief example (like the machine part example) can help illustrate the concept. Applying the Rule: Analyze the facts and explain why the damages were (or were not) foreseeable. * Here, the lost profits from the cancelled concert were foreseeable because the buyer specifically informed the seller about the concert and the purpose of the shirts. A reasonable seller, knowing these facts, would have foreseen that a delay in delivering the shirts would likely result in lost profits. Therefore, the foreseeability requirement is met. * Here, the lost profits from the buyer's other business ventures are likely not foreseeable. There is no evidence that the seller knew or had reason to know about these other ventures or that the breach of this contract (for the sale of widgets) would affect them. A reasonable seller would not have foreseen these losses as a probable result of the breach. Therefore, these consequential damages are not recoverable. Be sure to focus on what a reasonable person in the breaching party's position would have known or should have known at the time the contract was formed, based on the information available to them. This objective, time-specific analysis is the key to applying the foreseeability rule correctly.

Answer 36

Remedies – UCC Seller's Remedies & Damages Under the UCC, if a buyer breaches a contract for the sale of goods, the seller has various remedies, including: * Withholding delivery. * Stopping delivery by a bailee. * Reselling the goods and recovering damages. The resale must be commercially reasonable. Damages are the difference between the resale price and the contract price, plus incidental damages, less expenses saved. * Recovering damages for non-acceptance or repudiation. Damages are typically the difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the unpaid contract price, plus incidental damages, less expenses saved. Alternatively, if this measure is inadequate to put the seller in as good a position as performance, the seller may recover lost profits. * Recovering the price. This is available only in limited circumstances, such as when the goods have been accepted by the buyer, or when the goods have been lost or damaged after risk of loss passed to the buyer, or when the seller is unable to resell identified goods at a reasonable price. * The seller may also recover incidental damages, which include expenses reasonably incurred in stopping delivery, transporting, storing, and reselling the goods. __________ UCC Article 2 provides a range of remedies for a seller when a buyer breaches a contract for the sale of goods. These include withholding or stopping delivery, reselling the goods and recovering damages, recovering damages for non-acceptance or repudiation, and, in limited circumstances, recovering the price. Damages for non-acceptance are typically the difference between market price and contract price, but if this is inadequate, the seller may recover lost profits. A 'lost volume seller' – one who has an unlimited supply of goods and would have made both the original sale and the resale – can recover their lost profits even if they resell the goods, because the resale does not mitigate their loss. The seller may also recover incidental damages, which are expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the breach. The seller is not entitled to consequential damages under the UCC. Key Elements to Always Include: * UCC Article 2: Clearly state that the UCC governs the sale of goods. * Buyer's Breach: Specify the types of buyer breaches that trigger the seller's remedies. * Key Remedies: List the main remedies: withholding delivery, resale, damages for non-acceptance/repudiation, and (in limited cases) the price. * Incidental Damages: Mention that the seller can recover incidental damages. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * Specific Code Sections: Citing the relevant UCC sections adds authority (but isn't strictly necessary if you accurately describe the rules). * Resale (Commercially Reasonable): If the seller resells, emphasize that the resale must be commercially reasonable. * Lost Profits (UCC § 2-708(2)): If lost profits are at issue, explain this alternative measure of damages. * Lost Volume Seller: If the facts suggest a lost volume seller, explain this concept and its implications. * Action for the Price (Limitations): If the seller is seeking the price, explain the limited circumstances when this is allowed. * No Consequential Damages: It is very important to state that the seller cannot collect consequential damages. Applying the Rule: Explain which remedies are available to the seller and why, based on the specific facts. * Here, the buyer wrongfully rejected the goods. Under the UCC, the seller has several options. The seller can resell the goods in a commercially reasonable manner and recover the difference between the resale price and the contract price, plus incidental damages. Alternatively, the seller can recover damages for non-acceptance, which is the difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the unpaid contract price, plus incidental damages. * Or, if it's a lost volume seller: Here, the seller is a car dealership with an unlimited supply of cars. Even though the seller resold the car after the buyer's breach, the seller is a 'lost volume seller.' Because the seller would have made both the original sale and the resale, the resale did not mitigate the seller's loss. Therefore, the seller can recover its lost profits on the original sale, even though it resold the car. By clearly stating the rule, identifying the relevant UCC provisions, and carefully applying them to the facts, you will demonstrate a strong understanding of UCC seller's remedies on the bar exam. Remember to be specific about which remedies are available and how the damages are calculated under each.

Answer 37

Under the UCC, if a seller breaches a contract for the sale of goods, the buyer has various remedies, including: * Canceling the contract. * Recovering any part of the price already paid. * Reject or accept non-conforming goods * "Covering" by purchasing substitute goods. Damages are the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price, plus incidental and consequential damages, less expenses saved. Cover must be obtained in good faith and without unreasonable delay. * Recovering damages for non-delivery or repudiation. Damages are the difference between the market price at the time the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price, plus incidental and consequential damages, less expenses saved. * Obtaining specific performance. This is available when the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances. * Replevying the goods. This is available in limited circumstances, such as when the buyer is unable to cover after reasonable effort. * The buyer may recover incidental damages, which include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation, care, and custody of goods rightfully rejected, and other expenses incident to the delay or breach. * The buyer may also recover consequential damages, which are losses resulting from the seller's breach that the seller had reason to know of at the time of contracting and which could not be reasonably prevented by cover or otherwise. __________ UCC Article 2 provides remedies for a buyer when a seller breaches a contract for the sale of goods. These include canceling, recovering payments, covering and recovering damages, and recovering damages for non-delivery. If the seller delivers non-conforming goods, the buyer may: (1) reject the goods , provided they do so within a reasonable time and seasonably notify the seller; (2) accept the goods, and then, if they give timely notice of the breach, recover damages for the non-conformity – typically the difference between the value of the goods as accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted; or (3) revoke acceptance if the non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer, and certain other conditions are met. The buyer may also recover incidental and consequential damages, where applicable. Consequential damages must be foreseeable, and the buyer has a duty to mitigate. Key Elements to Always Include: * UCC Article 2: State that the UCC governs. * Seller's Breach: Specify the types of seller breaches. * Key Remedies: List the main remedies: cancellation, cover, damages for non-delivery, specific performance, replevin. * Incidental and Consequential Damages: Mention these, as buyers (unlike sellers) can recover consequential damages under the UCC. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * Specific Code Sections: Citing the relevant UCC sections adds authority. * Cover (Good Faith, Without Unreasonable Delay): If the buyer covers, emphasize these requirements. * Specific Performance (Uniqueness): If specific performance is at issue, explain why the goods are unique. * Rejection/Acceptance/Revocation of Acceptance: If the buyer deals with non-conforming goods, explain these options and their requirements. * Notice of Breach: If the buyer accepts non-conforming goods, mention the need to give timely notice to preserve remedies. * Foreseeability and mitigation If consequential damages are rewards. Applying the Rule: Apply the rule to the facts. Explain which remedies are available and why. * Here, the seller failed to deliver the goods. Under the UCC, the buyer can cancel the contract and recover any part of the price already paid. The buyer can also 'cover' by purchasing substitute goods in good faith and without unreasonable delay, and recover the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price, plus incidental and consequential damages. Alternatively, the buyer can recover damages for non-delivery, which is the difference between the market price at the time the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price, plus incidental and consequential damages. * Or, if dealing with non-conforming goods: Here, the seller delivered widgets that did not conform to the contract specifications. The buyer can reject the goods if they do so within a reasonable time and notify the seller. If the buyer accepts the goods, they can still recover damages for the non-conformity if they give timely notice of the breach. The damages would typically be the difference between the value of the widgets as accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted. Be specific about which remedies apply, how damages are calculated, and why the requirements for each remedy are (or are not) met under the facts. This demonstrates a strong understanding of UCC buyer's remedies.

Answer 38

A valid contract requires mutual assent, meaning both parties must agree to the same terms. Mutual assent is typically manifested through an offer by one party and an acceptance of that offer by the other party. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Mutual Assent" or "Meeting of the Minds": Use these key terms. * "Offer and Acceptance": Mention these as the typical way mutual assent is demonstrated. * Objective Standard: Use. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Objective Standard": If the facts involve a dispute about whether a party really intended to agree, emphasize the objective standard. * "Offer" Definition: If the issue is whether a communication was a valid offer, include the definition. * "Acceptance" Definition: If the issue is whether a response was a valid acceptance, include the definition. * "Mirror Image Rule": If the acceptance varies the terms of the offer, mention this rule (and its UCC counterpart, the "battle of the forms"). * "Manifestation of Intent": This phrase reinforces the objective standard. Applying the Rule: The application is the most important part. Explain why the facts do or do not demonstrate mutual assent. For example: "Here, the seller's advertisement stating 'Used car for sale, $5,000' is likely not an offer, but merely an invitation to negotiate. A reasonable person would not understand that their assent to the advertisement would conclude the bargain. Therefore, the buyer's statement 'I accept' does not create a contract." Or, conversely: "Here, the buyer's written purchase order, stating all material terms (price, quantity, description of goods), was a valid offer. The seller's email stating 'We accept your order' was an unequivocal acceptance, mirroring the terms of the offer. Therefore, mutual assent was present, and a contract was formed." Or, applying the objective standard: "Although the seller claims he was 'just joking' when he said he'd sell his car for $100, his words and conduct, viewed objectively, would lead a reasonable person to believe he was making a serious offer. Therefore, the buyer's acceptance created a binding contract, despite the seller's subjective intent." By clearly stating the rule and meticulously applying it to the facts, demonstrating why the parties' words and conduct do or do not manifest a "meeting of the minds," you'll show a strong understanding of mutual assent on the bar exam. Always remember the objective standard – it's not about what the parties secretly intended, but what a reasonable person would understand from their outward manifestations.

Answer 39

Formation – Offer An offer is a manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, communicated to another person in such a way that the offeree is justified in understanding that their assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it. A valid offer requires: (1) a manifestation of present contractual intent; (2) certainty and definiteness of terms; and (3) communication to the offeree. The offer creates a power of acceptance in the offeree." Key Elements to Always Include: * "Manifestation of Willingness to Enter into a Bargain": This is the core concept. * "Power of Acceptance": This highlights the legal effect of an offer. * "Justified in Understanding": This emphasizes the objective standard and the offeree's perspective. * "Present contractual intent" Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Objective Standard": If the offeror's subjective intent is at issue, emphasize the objective test. * "Certainty and Definiteness": If the terms are vague or missing, mention this requirement. * "Communication": If there's an issue of whether the offer reached the offeree, mention this. * "Advertisements, Price Quotes, etc.": If the fact pattern involves these, explain why they are generally not offers. Applying the Rule: The application is crucial. Explain why the communication in the fact pattern is (or is not) a valid offer. For example: "Here, the seller's statement 'I'm thinking of selling my car for around $5,000' is not an offer. It is a statement of future intent, not a manifestation of present willingness to enter into a bargain. A reasonable person would understand this as a preliminary negotiation, not an offer creating a power of acceptance." Or, conversely: "Here, the buyer's email stating, 'I offer to buy your 1967 Mustang, VIN 12345, for $25,000, delivery next Tuesday,' is a valid offer. It demonstrates a present intent to contract, contains definite terms (parties, subject matter, price, time for performance), and was communicated to the seller. It creates a power of acceptance in the seller." Or, regarding advertisements: "The department store's advertisement stating 'All sweaters 50% off' is generally not an offer, but an invitation to make an offer. Advertisements are typically considered invitations for customers to come in and make offers to purchase. However, if the advertisement is very specific and leaves nothing open to negotiation (e.g., 'The first 10 customers to arrive on Saturday will receive a free sweater'), it might be considered an offer." By clearly stating the rule, including the relevant elements, and carefully applying it to the facts, demonstrating why a communication is (or is not) a valid offer under the objective standard, you will demonstrate a solid understanding of this fundamental contract law concept on the bar exam. Always remember the "reasonable person" perspective and the requirement of a present intent to contract.

Answer 40

Formation – Acceptance Acceptance is an offeree's manifestation of assent to the terms of an offer, thereby creating a binding contract. To be valid, an acceptance must be: (1) unequivocal and unconditional; (2) a mirror image of the offer (under common law), meaning it must accept the exact terms proposed without modification; and (3) communicated to the offeror in the manner required or permitted by the offer. Silence generally does not constitute acceptance, unless there is a prior course of dealing or other circumstances indicating that silence is intended as acceptance. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Manifestation of Assent": This is the core concept – showing agreement to the offer. * "Terms of the Offer": Acceptance must be to the offer's terms. * "Communicated": Acceptance must generally be communicated to the offeror. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * "Unequivocal": If there's any doubt about the offeree's intent, mention this. * "Mirror Image Rule" (Common Law): If the acceptance varies the terms and it's not a UCC case, mention this. * "UCC 2-207" (Battle of the Forms): If it's a sale of goods and the acceptance has different/additional terms, mention this. * "Mailbox Rule": If the timing of acceptance is an issue, mention this rule (and its exceptions). * "Silence as Acceptance": If the facts involve silence, explain why it is usually not acceptance. * "Manner Invited or Required": If the offer specifies a particular method of acceptance, mention this. Applying the Rule: The application is the most important part. Explain why the offeree's actions do or do not constitute a valid acceptance. For example: "Here, the offeree's email stating 'I accept your offer to sell the car for $5,000' is a valid acceptance. It is an unequivocal manifestation of assent to the terms of the offer, and it was communicated to the offeror." Or, under the mirror image rule: "Here, the offeree's response stating 'I accept your offer, but I want you to include the snow tires' is not a valid acceptance under the common law mirror image rule. It is a counteroffer because it varies the terms of the original offer." Or, under the UCC: "Here, both parties are merchants, and the contract is for the sale of goods. The offeree's purchase order, which contained additional terms, may operate as an acceptance under UCC 2-207, unless the offer expressly limited acceptance to its terms, the additional terms materially alter the contract, or the offeror objected to the additional terms within a reasonable time." Or, applying the mailbox rule: "The offer did not specify a method of acceptance. The offeree mailed a letter of acceptance on Tuesday. Under the mailbox rule, the acceptance was effective upon dispatch (when it was mailed), even though the offeror did not receive it until Thursday. Therefore, a contract was formed on Tuesday." By clearly stating the rule, addressing any relevant variations (common law vs. UCC, mailbox rule, etc.), and carefully applying it to the facts, you'll show a strong understanding of acceptance on the bar exam. Always remember that acceptance must be a clear, unequivocal agreement to the terms of the offer.

Answer 41

Here are several options for rule statements concerning defenses to equitable remedies, suitable for a bar exam essay. These rules are often presented in conjunction with the general rule for equitable remedies, or in the analysis section after discussing a specific equitable remedy. Option 1 (Concise): Even if a plaintiff establishes grounds for an equitable remedy, the court may deny relief based on equitable defenses, such as unclean hands, laches, or if the relief would cause undue hardship. Option 2 (Slightly More Detailed): While equitable remedies are available when legal remedies are inadequate, they are subject to several defenses. These include unclean hands (the plaintiff engaged in wrongdoing related to the transaction), laches (the plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing suit, prejudicing the defendant), and undue hardship (the burden on the defendant would significantly outweigh the benefit to the plaintiff). Option 3 (Comprehensive - Includes Definitions and Examples): Equitable remedies are discretionary and are subject to several affirmative defenses, which, if proven by the defendant, may bar or limit the requested relief. Key equitable defenses include: * Unclean Hands: A plaintiff who has engaged in wrongdoing related to the subject matter of the lawsuit may be denied equitable relief. The misconduct must be directly related to the transaction at issue. * Laches: An unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in asserting their rights, which prejudices the defendant, may bar equitable relief. Prejudice may include loss of evidence, change in position, or intervening rights of third parties. * Undue Hardship/Balance of Equities: If granting the equitable remedy would cause a disproportionate hardship to the defendant compared to the benefit to the plaintiff, the court may deny relief or fashion a more limited remedy. * Estoppel: Equitable estoppel may prevent from asserting a right. These defenses are based on the principle that 'he who seeks equity must do equity' and that equitable relief should not be granted if it would be unfair or unjust under the circumstances. Option 4 (Most Comprehensive - Includes Policy and Interaction with Legal Remedies): Equity acts in personam, and equitable remedies are discretionary, subject to several defenses that reflect the principles of fairness and justice underlying equity jurisprudence. These defenses include: * Unclean Hands: This doctrine bars relief to a plaintiff who has engaged in inequitable conduct directly related to the matter in dispute. The purpose is to protect the integrity of the court and prevent a party from benefiting from their own wrongdoing. * Laches: This defense bars relief when the plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in asserting their rights, and this delay has prejudiced the defendant. The defendant must show both unreasonable delay and prejudice. * Undue Hardship/Balance of the Equities: A court may deny equitable relief, or fashion a more limited remedy, if granting the full requested relief would impose a disproportionate hardship on the defendant compared to the benefit the plaintiff would receive. * Estoppel: Equitable estoppel may prevent a party from assserting a right. > The availability of these defenses does not necessarily mean the plaintiff is without any remedy; they may still be entitled to legal remedies (monetary damages), even if equitable relief is denied. Key Elements to Always Include: * "Equitable Defenses": Clearly label the topic. * "Discretionary": Remind the reader that equitable remedies are not granted as a matter of right. * List Key Defenses: At a minimum, mention unclean hands, laches, and undue hardship. Elements to Include If Relevant to the Facts: * Definitions: Briefly define each defense you mention. * "Related to the Transaction": For unclean hands, emphasize that the misconduct must be related to the dispute. * "Unreasonable Delay" and "Prejudice": For laches, mention both elements. * "Disproportionate Hardship": For undue hardship, explain the balancing test. How to Choose: * Time: For a short answer, Option 1 or 2 is sufficient. * Focus: If the essay question centers on a specific defense, use Option 3 and focus on that defense. * Detail: For a comprehensive answer, use Option 4. Applying the Rule: As always, the application is the most important part. Explain why the facts do or do not support a particular defense. For example: "Here, the defendant argues that the plaintiff has unclean hands because the plaintiff misrepresented their financial condition when applying for the loan. However, this misrepresentation, while wrongful, is not directly related to the breach of the loan agreement itself, which is the basis for the plaintiff's claim for specific performance. Therefore, the unclean hands defense likely fails." Or, regarding laches: "The plaintiff waited three years after discovering the encroachment before filing suit for an injunction. During that time, the defendant built a substantial structure on the disputed land. The plaintiff's unreasonable delay, coupled with the significant prejudice to the defendant (the cost of removing the structure), supports the defense of laches. The court may deny the injunction due to laches, even if the plaintiff would otherwise be entitled to it." Or, regarding undue hardship: "While the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract to purchase the land, requiring the defendant to demolish their newly built home, which encroaches slightly onto the plaintiff's property, would create a disproportionate hardship. The benefit to the plaintiff of gaining a few feet of land is far outweighed by the enormous cost and disruption to the defendant. The court may, therefore, deny specific performance and instead award monetary damages to compensate the plaintiff for the encroachment." By stating the rules clearly, defining the key defenses, and meticulously applying them to the facts, demonstrating why a defense does or does not apply, you will show a thorough understanding of equitable defenses on the bar exam. Always remember that equity is about fairness, and these defenses are tools to prevent equitable remedies from being used unjustly.

Answer 42

Okay, here's a chart summarizing UCC Article 2 (Sales) Contract Remedies, distinguishing between Seller's Remedies and Buyer's Remedies, and including key Code sections and brief explanations: | Feature | Seller's Remedies (Buyer Breaches) | Buyer's Remedies (Seller Breaches) | |---|---|---| | Triggering Events | Buyer wrongfully rejects goods, wrongfully revokes acceptance, fails to make a payment due on or before delivery, or repudiates the contract. (§ 2-703) | Seller fails to make delivery, repudiates the contract, or delivers non-conforming goods that the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance of. (§ 2-711) | | General Options | Withhold delivery, stop delivery, resell and recover damages, recover damages for non-acceptance or repudiation, recover the price, cancel the contract. | Cancel the contract, recover payments made, cover and recover damages, recover damages for non-delivery, obtain specific performance (in limited cases), replevy the goods (in limited cases), recover damages for accepted non-conforming goods. | | Specific Remedies | | | | Withhold Delivery | Seller may refuse to deliver the goods. (§ 2-703(a)) | N/A (Buyer's remedy is to seek damages or other relief) | | Stop Delivery | Seller may stop delivery of goods in the possession of a carrier or other bailee under certain circumstances (e.g., buyer's insolvency). (§ 2-705) | N/A | | Resell & Recover | Seller may resell the goods in a commercially reasonable manner and recover the difference between the resale price and the contract price, plus incidental damages, less expenses saved. (§ 2-706) | N/A (Buyer's analogous remedy is "cover") | | Damages (Non-Accept.) | Seller may recover the difference between the market price at the time and place for tender and the unpaid contract price, plus incidental damages, less expenses saved. (§ 2-708(1)). If inadequate, seller may recover lost profits (including overhead). (§ 2-708(2)) | Buyer may recover the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price, plus incidental and consequential damages, less expenses saved. (§ 2-713) | | Action for the Price | Seller may recover the price of goods: (1) accepted by the buyer; (2) lost or damaged within a commercially reasonable time after risk of loss passed to the buyer; or (3) identified to the contract if the seller is unable to resell them at a reasonable price. (§ 2-709) | N/A (Buyer can recover payments already made) | | Cancel | Seller may cancel the contract. (§ 2-703(f)) | Buyer may cancel the contract. (§ 2-711(1)) | | Cover | N/A | Buyer may purchase substitute goods in good faith and without unreasonable delay, and recover the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price, plus incidental and consequential damages, less expenses saved. (§ 2-712) | | Specific Performance | Rarely granted to sellers. Can do so with unique goods. | Buyer may obtain specific performance if the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances (e.g., output/requirements contracts where cover is impossible). (§ 2-716) | | Replevin | N/A | Buyer may replevy (recover possession of) identified goods if unable to cover after reasonable effort, or if the goods were shipped under reservation and satisfaction of the security interest has been made or tendered. (§ 2-716) | | Damages (Accepted Goods) | N/A | If Buyer accepts non-conforming goods, buyer may recover damages for breach of warranty. The measure of damages is typically the difference between the value of the goods as accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted. (§ 2-714) | | Incidental Damages | Seller may recover incidental damages, including commercially reasonable charges, expenses, or commissions incurred in stopping delivery, transporting, storing, and caring for goods after the buyer's breach, and in connection with return or resale. (§ 2-710) | Buyer may recover incidental damages, including expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation, care, and custody of goods rightfully rejected, and any commercially reasonable charges, expenses, or commissions in connection with effecting cover. (§ 2-715(1)) | | Consequential Damages | Seller may not recover consequential damages under the UCC. | Buyer may recover consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach, including (a) any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and (b) injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty. (§ 2-715(2)) | Key Considerations and Explanations: * Commercially Reasonable: Many of the seller's remedies (resale) and the buyer's remedy of cover require actions to be taken in a "commercially reasonable" manner. This is a fact-specific inquiry, but generally means acting in good faith and in a way that is consistent with reasonable commercial practices. * Lost Volume Seller: A seller who can prove they would have made both the original sale and a subsequent sale (e.g., a car dealer with an unlimited supply) can recover lost profits on the original sale, even if they resell the goods. This is because the resale doesn't actually mitigate their loss. * Notice: In many situations (e.g., rejection, revocation of acceptance, breach of warranty for accepted goods), the buyer must give the seller timely notice of the problem to preserve their remedies. * Mitigation: Both buyers and sellers have a duty to mitigate their damages (take reasonable steps to minimize losses). * Good Faith: The UCC imposes a general obligation of good faith in all transactions. This chart provides a good overview, but it's essential to consult the specific UCC sections and relevant case law for a complete understanding. Remember to always apply the rules to the specific facts of any hypothetical on the bar exam.

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Contracts Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM