contracts and sales Flashcards
Express Contract
contract that results from words
- oral or
- written
Implied contract
contract that results from conduct
-a reasonable person would infer a promise from the conduct
Quasi Contract
A remedy that may be granted when certain elements exist
- P has conferred a benefit on D and
- P reasonably expected to be paid and
- D would realize unjust enrichment if P not compensated
Bilateral Contract
Formed from an offer that is open as to the method of acceptance
1. ex. I will pay you 1K to paint my house. could accept by return promise, or by beginning to perform
Unilateral contract
Formed from an offer that requires performance as the only method of acceptance, a return promise will not work
2 common fact patterns
1. sometimes the offer expressly requires performance (uncle promises nephew that if he doesnt drink, smoke, gamble until 21, he will pay him 5K)
2. offer of a reward/prize/contest
Article 2 of the UCC applies
2 factors: the type of transaction is
- a sale: the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price
- subject matter: goods-Personal moveable property
- services contrat are not governed by article 2
- if you have a hybrid or a mixed contract: goods and services
offer
- a manifestation of an intention to contract
- the basic test is whether a reasonable person in the position of the offeree would believe that his assent creates a contract (objective theory of K)
- focus on what the person did or wrote
- key work is manifestation
- it doesnt matter what the person intended: (if they had a secret intent to not sell, it doesnt matter, what matters is that they manifested an intent to sell)
contract
legally enforceable agreement
measure of recovery in quasi contract
it may as justice requires be measured by:
- the reasonable value of the services renders (quantum meruit) or
- to the extent to which the other party’s property has been increased in value his other interests advances
can a breaching party recover in quasi contract?
Modern rule: can recover as long as they acted in good faith/ as long as it is not a will full breach for the party’s own convenience or financial advantage
Traditional rule: they could not recover
article 2 applies regardless
regardless of the amount of money and regardless of whether the seller is a merchant
the statute of frauds only applies is over 500 and certain parts of article2 the seller has to be a merchant
what do you do with a hybrid or mixed contract?
the predominant purpose test:
if the main purpose is the goods: apply UCC
If services: no UCC
How do you decide??
- how much money spent on goods v. services
- how much time on the labor? how long will the services take?
- how sophisticated is the labor?
- does the contract contain typical sales language? (buyer and seller, warranties)
how definite does an offer have to be?
have enough of the essential terms been decided so that the court could enforce it
generally includes: parties, subject matter, price, delivery of performance, nature of the work involved, the quantity
2. the more that is left open, the more the court will find it to be negotiations
Gap fillers in a potential contract (contract)
- certain terms are left out and the court supplies the missing terms so that they can enforce the K
- the court kind of pieces together some of the information from references to the external sources of terms
- usually a price term is missing: if land, have to ID the land and have a price term (b/c land is unique)
- if the contract is for goods: can have an offer without the price if the parties so intend. (have to intend to be bound, and the court will supply a reasonable price)
vague or ambiguous term in the price of K
- at common law and under the UCC, this is not an offer.
2. there is an attempt to come up with a price but they didn’t do it clearly enough, cant determine what they meant
output contracts/ requirement contracts
the quantity can be measured by the buyer’s requirement or the seller’s output
ex. delta buys all the jet fuel it requires from exxon for a 5 years period, or a butcher sells all it hides it outputs to a purse maker
- has to be a good faith output or requirement
- can vary a little throughout the time: no quantity or unreasonably disproportionate to comparable prior output or requirement
Advertisements
- generally not an offer, it is a mere invitation for offers
- exception: an advertisement can be an offer if it is specific as to quantity and indicated who can accept
- exception: can be an offer if it is in the nature of a reward.
Auctions
- what is the offer? the bid, not the auctioneer asking for bids. the auctioneer is inviting offers
- if the auction is being conducted without reserve, auctioneer is obligated to sell to high bidder, auction with reserve unless terms state that is without reserve
Termination of an offer
- an offer cannot be accepted if it has terminated
- things that will kill an offer:
- lapse of time:
- words or conduct of offeror: revocation of the offer
termination by lapse of time
if no time is expressed, an offer lapses after a reasonable time under all of the circumstances
revocation of an offer by the words or conduct or offeror
- statement made by the offeror to the offeree indicating the unwillingness to contract or
- conduct of offeror that is inconsistent with an intention to make the contract AND of which the offeree is aware
- If the oferee hears a rumor that the offeror has revoked: if the information is reliable, the offer is revoked,
- general offer( advertisement of reward): when notice of termination is given publicity equal to that given by the offer
when does the revocation of an offer become effective?
- sent through the mail is not effective until the revocation is received
- an offer cannot be revoked after it has been accepted but generally an offer can be revoked any time prior to acceptance.
an option contract
- if the offeror has promised to keep the offer open and the promise is supported by consideration
- this offer cannot be revoked
- what is the consideration is token or nominal?
a. courts normally do not inquire into the adequacy of the consideration,
b. But if it is a mere sham, or it is not bargained for, then it is not consideration
c. even nominal consideration is sufficient to support an option contract - what if you recite the consideration but do not actually give it? generally presumed it is given, but if you can prove that it is not been given, then no consideration
offers that cannot be revoked
- option contract
- UCC rule: firm offer rule
- reliance: reasonable and foreseeable
- performance has begun in a unilateral contract
firm offer rule
- only applies to the contract for the sale of goods
- a written promise to keep the offer open
- promise made by a merchant
- in the absence of consideration the offer can only be irrevocable for 3 months
- if no time is set, the offer is irrevocable for a reasonable time not to exceed 3 months
- if the offer is oral, it is revocable
merchant
- deals in goods of the kind or who otherwise holds himself out as having knowledge or skill particular to the practices or goods involved.
- or one to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributes by the employment of an agent who holds himself out as having such knowledge or skill
reasonable reliance that is foreseeable
an offer cannot be revoked if there has been reliance by the offeree that is reasonably foreseeable but reliance alone is not enough
ex. contractor solicits bids from suppliers for construction project, contractor uses that bid for making a larger bid.
performance has begun in a unilateral contract
- cannot be revoked
- once performance has begun, it is irrevocable
- if not begun performance, but preparation: can still be revoked
- but if the consideration can be broken down into clear and distinct segments, then the offer can be revoked for those yet to be performed (ex. 10 houses to be painted, painter paints 3, can revoke for the remaining houses but not the 3 painted)
difference in preparing to perform and performing?
1.look at whether the offeror has benefited in any way yet
if yes, then more like beginning or performance
if not, more like preparation
Termination of the offer by the words or conduct of the offeree
- terminated any right to accept the offer
- rejection sent through the mail is effective when received
- a counter offer, terminates any right to accept the offer
- a mere inquiry does not kill the offer, (bargaining) (if in the form of a question, more of a bargain)
- a rejection or counteroffer does not terminate the offer under an option contract (but look out for estoppel, a P may be estopped from arguing the right to exercise the option if they made it clear they would not want the option and the D relied on that)
conditional acceptance
- under the common law and UCC: a conditional acceptance terminates the offer
- proviso clause: I accept provided you agree to this: no contract at this point, a counter offer which killed the offer
- what is the goods are delivered and paid for but the dispute above still arises: a contract implied from conduct, but no express contract.
- in this case, the agreed upon terms become the K, the disputed terms are thrown out, and the code fills the gaps
acceptance with additional terms
- common law: acceptance must be the mirror image of the offer or it operates as a rejection (the mirror image rule)
- UCC: the additional terms become part of the contract if both parties are merchants and the additional term does not materially alter the contract and the offeror does not object within a reasonable time
- otherwise, the additional term is a mere proposal for the addition to the contract which must be separately accepted by the other party
How do you know if an additional term materially alters a contract?
- surprising, oppressive term
2. arbitration clauses are generally found to materially alter the K
acceptance with different/conflicting terms
- common law: mirror image rule applies and rejected
- UCC: different term can be ok as long as a definite and seasonable expression of acceptance
- if it is quantity, price or another major term, it is not ok, otherwise it is
- some courts treat different terms like a additional term
- most courts apply the knock out rule: the conflicting terms knock each other out and the code fills the gaps
termination of an offer because of death or a party prior to acceptance
- general rule: death terminates the offer whether or not the other party knows
- exceptions: option contract and part performance in a unilateral contract
may have a defense of impossibility
who can accept an offer?
- generally, only the person to whom the offer is made can accept.
- offer cannot be assigned unless an option (unless the option otherwise provides).
- have to have knowledge of an offer to accept it (public offer: reward poster)
methods of accepting the offer
- performance
- promise to perform
- acceptance through the mail
- seller sends the wrong goods
- offeree is silent
acceptance by performance
- unilateral contract: once performance has begun, the offer is irrevocable but there is not acceptance until the performance is complete
- bilateral contract offer: beginning to perform is acceptance
acceptance through promise to perform
- if the offer is open to the method of acceptance, then the promise to perform is a good acceptance
- if the offer is for a unilateral contract, a promise is not enough for acceptance
acceptance though the mail
- acceptance if effective when posted
- if the offer arrives by mail or if acceptance by mail is customary, it is generally reasonable to accept by mail
- what if the acceptance never arrives?: doesn’t matter
exceptions to the mailbox rule
- rejection mailed first then letter of acceptance, rejection was received first: the letter of acceptance operates as a counter offer
- acceptance is mailed first, then the rejection is sent and the rejection is received first: estoppel may apply. if the rejection was relied on before they knew the acceptance was mailed then estopped from arguing that there was a contract formed
- the offeror has control over the terms that he proposed, so he can impose limitations on the time, place or manner if the acceptance. if that is the case, the mailbox rule does not apply if the offeror says acceptance has to be in person or via phone (no acceptance until) BUT if the offeror merely suggests a way to acceptance, then the offeree can use any reasonable means and the mailbox rule applies
option deadlines and the mailbox rule
- generally, you cannot use the mailbox rule to meet an option deadline
- response has to be received by the option deadline unless the offer says the acceptance has to be postmarked or mailed by the date
seller sends the wrong goods and acceptance
- shipping the goods is an acceptance and if it is the wrong goods, it is a breach of contract
- exception: the seller sends the wrong thing but says i hope you accept this instead (an accomodation letter) this is a counter offer
offeree is silent as to acceptance
- generally the offeror cannot unilaterally turn the offeree’s silence into acceptance
- if past dealings or trade custom show that silence is reasonable acceptance, then it can be
consideration
elements:
1. the promisee must suffer some legal detriment
2. the detriment must induce the promise (promisor makes his promise to induce the conduct of the promisee)
3. the promise must induce the detriment (the promisee is induces to act by the promise)
ASK: did the promise by the promisor induce the promisee to act AND did the conduct of the promisee induce the making of the promise by the promisor look like a bargained for exchange?
forms of the legal detriment
- performance ie. doing something not legally obligated to do
- forbearance i.e not doing something legally entitled to do
- promise to perform
- promise to forbear
possible issues with consideration
- conditional gift: if either of the parties intended to make a gift, she was not bargaining for something and there is no consideration. (see if the meeting of the condition benefits the promisor)
- legal detriment: doesn’t necessarily make you worse off, just giving something up that you are legally entitled to do
- ** past consideration**: not consideration, when the promise is made is the promisor bargaining for something
- adequacy of consideration
Past consideration: moral obligation
- Moral obligation: generally is not enough to substitute for consideration BUT if acts have previously been performed by the promisee at the promisor’s request and the promisee has an expectation of payment, the modern trend is to enforce a new promise
ex. someone asks a man to rescue his wife and he knows that the rescuer would expect payment, and then after the rescue promises to pay the rescuer 3K, this is likely enforceable - material benefit rule: some courts enforced promises made by a person who received a material benefit and then promised to pay for it
ex. man throwing something off building, realizes his boss is below and holds on and steers the thing away from boss, the boss later promises to pay the man per week for what he did, the court enforced it - promissory estoppel
adequacy of consideration
courts do not inquire into the adequacy of consideration, BUT if gross disparity it could be a fraud or duress or capacity issue
pre-existing duty rule: common law
- the performance of a pre-existing legal duty (contractual or statutory) is not consideration
ex. willie nelson agrees to play for 15K then later demands 20K for the same performance, the extra 5K is not enforceable unless he promises to sings longer or sign autographs - pre-existing duty owed to a third person: because there is no pre-existing duty to the third party, there can be an enforceable promise
ex. willie nelson threatens to cancel, a local bar owner promises to pay 5K if he still plays because the bar owner will see an increase in profits, the promise is likely enforceable
unforeseen difficulty exception to pre-existing duty rule: common law
- something happens that you haven’t foreseen the risk of
- ex. contractor excavating a foundation and hits a lot of unforeseen rock, the owner promises to pay more money
- it is enforceable as long as it is fair and equitable in view of circumstances not anticipated when the contract was entered into
- basically it has to be so bad, that the party could claim impossibility as an excuse, it has to be very severe to make performance vitally different
article 2: consideration for modification
- dont need consideration to modify a sale of goods contract: no pre-existing duty rule
- good faith is required for modification
Part payment as consideration for promise to forgive balance of debt
the key is whether the debt is due and undisputed. if so, then part payment is not consideration
ex. 3K is due and disputed. d offers to pay 2K and c promises not to sue…c can sue for the rest of the money
if not due yet or disputed: payment is consideration here and C couldnt sue for the rest
settlement of a claim as consideration
can be consideration as long as the party giving up the claim in good faith believes that the claim is valid
promise to pay debt barred by the statute of limitations as consideration
- Creditors rights: a written promise to pay a debt barred by the statute of limitations is enforceable, there is no need for consideration.
- only the new promise is enforceable, not the original debt
Illusory Promises
is a promise in form but not in substance. such a promise is not consideration for the other promise
1. promise to buy a house if I decide i want it
promissory estoppel as consideration substitute
elements:
- promise
- reliance that is both foreseeable and justifiable
- enforcement necessary to avoid injustice
comparison of consideration and promissory estoppel
promissory estoppel: the remedy may be limited as justice requires:
Capacity to contract
- have to be 18
- mental capacity
- intoxicated persons
Mental incompetent and capacity to contract
- a person is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction or is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction and the other party has reason to know of this condition
Intoxication and capacity to contract
the other party has reason to know that , by reason of intoxication, he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction or he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.
consequences of incapacity
- right to disaffirm: have to disaffirm while you are a minor or within a reasonable time when becoming an adult (can ratify as an adult, the other party cannot disaffirm)
- liability for neccesaries: they need it to survive, what is a necessary is a question of fact. liable not on the contract for the necessary, but liable on a quasi contractual theory: pay for the benefit you received
Statute of frauds defense
Issues:
- is the contract within the statute of frauds?
- is the statute of frauds satisfied?
- if not why?
contracts within the statute of frauds
- promise in consideration of marriage: a pre-nup agreement usually, promise to marry is not within the statute
- promise by executor or administrator to pay an obligation of the estate from his own funds
- promises to answer for the debt of another (when third party promises to the creditor only)
1) primary benefit exception (if the party making the promises to pay the debt for the primary benefit of themselves, not within the statute) - contract which is not capable of being performed within one year of the date that it was entered into (key is what might have happened)
- promise creating an interest in land: if easement for over a year, or a lease for over a year etc
- sale of goods for $500 or more
- modifications
lifetime contract and statute of frauds
not within the statute because you could die in a year
statute of frauds and orally agree to employ for 3 years but allow either party to terminate on 30 days notice
majority rule: within the statute
Minority rule: not within the statute because within a year could terminate with 30 days notice, ohio potentially follows this rule
equal dignity rule
- contract for the sale of land has to be in writing
- therefore, a writing is needed to authorize someone to sign the contract for you
- but if agent signing in your presence, no written authorization is required
modifications
look to the contract as modified, if within the statute of frauds, the modification must be in writing (if it involves an essential term)
are written modification clauses enforced at common law?
no, but they are in the UCC
UCC modification of the contract
does it involve 500 or more?
is there a provision requiring that all modifications be in writing? (unless it is waived)
only the quantity really needs to be stated so the original writing might satisfy the statute
how is the statute of frauds satisfied?
writing (an electronic record is ok most of the time) this is the most common way to satisfy the statute must have:
- identify the parties
- identify the subject matter
- contain all the essential terms
- signed by the party to be charged (electronic signature okay)
part performance of an oral agreement that cannot be performed within a year, can the part performance satisfy the statute?
does not satisfy the statute of frauds if cannot be performed within 1 year
but the P can usually recover under quasi contract
signed by the party to be charged
- who is raising the defense
2. statute only satisfied as to the party who signed it
part performance of an oral agreement to buy real estate satisfy the statute of frauds?
part performance in real estate and 2 of 3
1. full or part payment
2. possession
3. improvements
mere payment alone does not satisfy the statute
statute of frauds and promissory estoppel: multistate
modern trend: a promise may be enforceable to avoid injustice using promissory estoppel even when the statute of frauds is not satisfied
- only enforceable to the extent that it avoids injustice
- what if there is an oral promise to draw up a written employment agreement? there would be reliance on the promise to put the agreement in to writing
stat of frauds and promissory estoppel and ohio
promissory estoppel can be used to get around the SOF only if there has been misrepresentation that the statute has been satisfied or there is a promise to put it in writing
2. reluctant to generally apply promissory estoppel
Sale of goods for over $500 or more and satisfy the statute of frauds
- common way to satisfy the statute is writing which has to state a quantity (can be requirement or output)
- must indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties (must afford a basis for believing there is a K)..easier to satisfy than common law
- signed by the party to be charges
UCC writng signed by the person seeking to enforce the contract: the merchant
a writing can satisfy the SOF without the signed party raising the defense if:
- both parties are merchants
- writing claims that there is a K
- writing is signed and states quantity
- failure to object in writing within 10 days of receipt
part performance of contract for the sale of goods
- generally part performance for sale of goods satisfies the SOF to the extent of part performance
- only enforceable to the extent of the part performed
specially manufactured goods
specially manufactured and not suitable for sale to others (ex custom cowboy boots)
1. once the seller has made a substantial beginning of the manufacture, the contract is enforceable and the statute of frauds is satisfied
judidial admissions and the SOF
if a party admits under oath that you had a contract, you do not have the SOF defense
1. this is a ucc rule but some courts have extended it to other contracts too
what is the SOF applies but you have not satisfied it?
- unenforceable
it is not illegal
mistake: ambiguity (mutual misunderstanding) in the bargaining process
there is no contract is:
- the parties use a material term open to at least two reasonable interpretations and
- each party attaches different meaning to the term and
- neither party knows or has reason to know the meaning attached by the other
- usually one party attaches a more reasonable meaning to the contract which will control
- rarely do both parties attach equally reasonable meanings