contracts case names Flashcards
specht v netscape
Specht had no mutual assent - license terms with arbitration clause was buried in a few different web pages
Feldman v Google
mutual assent was affirmed - clickwrap enforceable - terms of agreement were visible upon first impression
Normile v Miller
acceptance - revocation is valid upon receipt - counteroffer terminates offer
Petterson v Pattberg
unilateral contract - classical view requires completed performance to serve as acceptance
Cook v Coldwell Banker
acceptance via substantial performance - modern view of acceptance - Coldwell Banker couldn’t revoke
Princess v GE
battle of the forms - predominant purpose test - trial court applied UCC, appellate court applied Restatements (services)
Brown Machine v Hercules
UCC Battle of the Forms - Qualified Acceptance -
Batsakis v Demotsis
adequacy of consideration doesn’t matter, only if consideration is present or absent
Kirksey squared
promissory estoppel - classical view - PE not applied in family situations (charitable pledges only)
King v. Boston University
promissory estoppel - consideration - BU taking care of papers counted as consideration, there was reliance by promisee
Katz v Danny Dare
promissory estoppel applied - Kat’s detriment was that he couldn’t work anywhere else by that time
Plowman v Indian Refining Co
consideration - past consideration doesn’t count
Aceves v. U.S. Bank
promissory estoppel -
Pelo case
unjust enrichment enforced - Pelo got benefit of medical diagnosis
Watts case
unjust enrichment, implied in law - unmarried couple holding t hemselves out as married, she contributed to household
Mills v Wyman
classical view - promissory restitution not enforced - Wyman’s dad said he would pay his son’s medical bills, then changed his mind
Webb v McGowan
modern view of promissory restitution - material benefit rule - McGowan got a material benefit in the form of his life being saved, said he would pay Webb for his whole life
Walker v Keith
mutual assent - ambiguity - ambiguous term of “rent” - couldn’t “agree to agree”
Joyner v Adams
what does “completed development” mean? ambiguity - remanded to find out if there was “superior knowledge”
Thompson v Libby
parol evidence - classical approach - four corners - contract deemed fully complete, no PE evidence allowed
Taylor v State Farm
modern view of parol evidence - trial court properly considered and admitted extrinsic evidence to interpret release
Sherodd v Morrison
parol evidence - contract guaranteed by merger clause - no PE allowed - dissent says fraud
Nanakuli v Shell Oil Co
permissive view of PE - consider party intent -
Wood v Lady Duff Gordon
implied in law terms - reasonable efforts
Liebel v Raynor
implied in law terms - reasonable notice of termination enforced (they were exclusive dealer of garage doors)
Morin v GM
implied in law terms - reasonable satisfaction clause - Morin installed garage doors, GM didn’t like them so wouldn’t pay
Bayliner v Crow
implied warranties - fitness for a particular purpose
Crabtree v Elizabeth Arden
Statute of Frauds - you can combine signed and unsigned writings provided it’s the same subject matter, to satisfy SOF
Buffaloe v Hart
SOF - UCC - part performance exception
Beaver v Brumlow
SOF - Restatement - land contract provision - purchasers actions were sufficient part performance to take case out of SOF
Leonard v PepsiCo
ads are not valid offers!
Baird v Gimbel Co
acceptance - plaintiff accepted Gimbel’s offer several days after written confirmation of withdrawal
Drennan v Star Paving
loss resulting from mistake should fall on party who caused it -
Pop’s Cones v Harrah’s Resorts
promissory estoppel - Pops relied on promise made by Harrah’s, suffered substantial detriment
Hamer v Sidway
consideration - abstaining from legal rights (tobacco, alcohol) can count as consideration
Pennsy v American Ash
consideration - benefit detriment theory
