Contracts Eman Flashcards
In case of doubt an offer is interpreted as inviting the offeree to accept __________________. Where performance takes a period of time, _______.
In case of doubt an offer is interpreted as inviting the offeree to accept EITHER by promising to perform what the offer requests OR by rendering the performances, as the offeree chooses. Where performance takes a period of time, the BEGINNING OF PERFORMANCE GENERALLY CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE.
Acceptance by performance may require…
Because treating the beginning of performance as an acceptance may leave the offeror hanging, acceptance by performance MAY REQUIRE that the offered promptly thereafter notify the offeror of the acceptance.
In order to raise revenue, a city required home-repair contractors who performed work within the city limits to pay a licensing fee to a city agency. A contractor who was unaware of the fee requirement agreed to perform home repairs for a city resident. After the contractor completed the work, the resident discovered the the contractor had not paid the licensing fee, and she refused to pay for the repairs, which were otherwise satisfactory. If the contractor sues the resident for breach of contract, how is the court likely to rule?
Although the contract violates the law, the court will find that public policy does not bar enforcement of the contract, because the purpose of the fee is merely to raise revenue.
There is no general doctrine to the effect that where performance of a contract would violate the law (ie “the contract would be illegal”) the court will refuse to enforce that contract. Instead, the only relevant doctrine is that certain agreements will be “unenforceable on the grounds of public policy.”
Because there are many cases involving the argument that the court should not enforce a services contract where the service provider is not licensed to do the work covered by the contract, the Second Restatement provides:
“If a party is prohibited from doing an act because of his failure to comply with a licensensing, registration or similar requirement, a promise in consideration of his doing that act of of his promise to do it is unenforceable on the grounds of public policy IF 1) requirement has a regulatory purpose and 2) the interest in the enforcement of the promise is clearly outweighed by the public policy behind the requirement.”
The term “___” contract is really an oxymoron. The correct term would be ____.
void contract. voidable contract is correct, not VOID contract!
Collection of a debtor’s 2k debt to a creditor was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The debtor sold and delivered his care to a buyer under a written agreement, signed by the buyer, in which the buyer promised to pay the 2k purchase price to the creditor “in satisfaction of the debtor’s debt to the creditor.” Can the creditor recover the 2k from the buyer?
Yes, because the buyer’s promise to pay 2k to the creditor is enforceable by the creditor regardless of whether the debtor was legally obligated to pay the creditor anything.
This is the correct response because 1) the creditor is an intended beneficiary of the buyer’s promise to pay 2k to the creditor and 2) the buyer’s promise would be interpreted as a promise to pay the specified amount (the 2k) regardless of whether the debtor was legally obligated to pay 2k to the creditor.
Amount in Controversy and Aggregation -
A single plaintiff can aggregate all of her claims against a single D for purposes of satisfying 75k standard. And if one P meets the standard, supplemental jurisdiction may well let other parties with claims for less than 75k have their claims heard too. BUT if NO P has claims of more than 75k against any D, as a general rule the P may not aggregate their claims to meet the amount.
Most often tested rule about removal: If the only source of federal jurisdiction would be diversity…..D cannot remove UNLESS
no D is a citizen of the state in which the original state-court action is pending. (this is about diversity—not applicable for federal question.)
For example, Maggie (citizen of TN) sues Maura (citizen of MD) in the state courts of MD. Since Maura is citizen of MD, the state in which the action is pending, Maura has no right to remove (And if there were two Ds, Maura who is a citizen of MD and Bobby who is a citizen of NY, NEITHER of them could remove since the requirement that NO D be a citizen of MD (where the action is pending) is NOT satisfied. However, if Maggie’s claim raises a federal question and could be heard either in state law or federal court, then the fact that Maura (or one ds of serval) is a citizen of the state where the state court action is pending would not prevent Maura from removing.
Who MAY NOT remove?
A plaintiff in the state court suit MAY NOT REMOVE. Only a party who was a defendant in the action as originally filed in state court may REMAND, and the federal court must remand a case that was improperly removed.
