Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Contracts > contracts case names > Flashcards

contracts case names Flashcards

1
Q

specht v netscape

A

Specht had no mutual assent - license terms with arbitration clause was buried in a few different web pages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Feldman v Google

A

mutual assent was affirmed - clickwrap enforceable - terms of agreement were visible upon first impression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Normile v Miller

A

acceptance - revocation is valid upon receipt - counteroffer terminates offer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Petterson v Pattberg

A

unilateral contract - classical view requires completed performance to serve as acceptance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Cook v Coldwell Banker

A

acceptance via substantial performance - modern view of acceptance - Coldwell Banker couldn’t revoke

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Princess v GE

A

battle of the forms - predominant purpose test - trial court applied UCC, appellate court applied Restatements (services)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Brown Machine v Hercules

A

UCC Battle of the Forms - Qualified Acceptance -

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Batsakis v Demotsis

A

adequacy of consideration doesn’t matter, only if consideration is present or absent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Kirksey squared

A

promissory estoppel - classical view - PE not applied in family situations (charitable pledges only)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

King v. Boston University

A

promissory estoppel - consideration - BU taking care of papers counted as consideration, there was reliance by promisee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Katz v Danny Dare

A

promissory estoppel applied - Kat’s detriment was that he couldn’t work anywhere else by that time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Plowman v Indian Refining Co

A

consideration - past consideration doesn’t count

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Aceves v. U.S. Bank

A

promissory estoppel -

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Pelo case

A

unjust enrichment enforced - Pelo got benefit of medical diagnosis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Watts case

A

unjust enrichment, implied in law - unmarried couple holding t hemselves out as married, she contributed to household

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Mills v Wyman

A

classical view - promissory restitution not enforced - Wyman’s dad said he would pay his son’s medical bills, then changed his mind

17
Q

Webb v McGowan

A

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

18
Q

Walker v Keith

A

mutual assent - ambiguity - ambiguous term of “rent” - couldn’t “agree to agree”

19
Q

Joyner v Adams

A

what does “completed development” mean? ambiguity - remanded to find out if there was “superior knowledge”

20
Q

Thompson v Libby

A

parol evidence - classical approach - four corners - contract deemed fully complete, no PE evidence allowed

21
Q

Taylor v State Farm

A

modern view of parol evidence - trial court properly considered and admitted extrinsic evidence to interpret release

22
Q

Sherodd v Morrison

A

parol evidence - contract guaranteed by merger clause - no PE allowed - dissent says fraud

23
Q

Nanakuli v Shell Oil Co

A

permissive view of PE - consider party intent -

24
Q

Wood v Lady Duff Gordon

A

implied in law terms - reasonable efforts

25
Q

Liebel v Raynor

A

implied in law terms - reasonable notice of termination enforced (they were exclusive dealer of garage doors)

26
Q

Morin v GM

A

implied in law terms - reasonable satisfaction clause - Morin installed garage doors, GM didn’t like them so wouldn’t pay

27
Q

Bayliner v Crow

A

implied warranties - fitness for a particular purpose

28
Q

Crabtree v Elizabeth Arden

A

Statute of Frauds - you can combine signed and unsigned writings provided it’s the same subject matter, to satisfy SOF

29
Q

Buffaloe v Hart

A

SOF - UCC - part performance exception

30
Q

Beaver v Brumlow

A

SOF - Restatement - land contract provision - purchasers actions were sufficient part performance to take case out of SOF

31
Q

Leonard v PepsiCo

A

ads are not valid offers!

32
Q

Baird v Gimbel Co

A

acceptance - plaintiff accepted Gimbel’s offer several days after written confirmation of withdrawal

33
Q

Drennan v Star Paving

A

loss resulting from mistake should fall on party who caused it -

34
Q

Pop’s Cones v Harrah’s Resorts

A

promissory estoppel - Pops relied on promise made by Harrah’s, suffered substantial detriment

35
Q

Hamer v Sidway

A

consideration - abstaining from legal rights (tobacco, alcohol) can count as consideration

36
Q

Pennsy v American Ash

A

consideration - benefit detriment theory

Contracts (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions