Defenses Flashcards

1
Q

Stees v. Leonard
(Mud Building)

A

Builder reasonably knew the risks, but did not plan for it in the contract. So impossibility is not a defense.

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

Taylor v. Caldwell
(Music Hall)

A
  1. The party must perform an unqualified promise even though performance is more burdensome than expected.
  2. if performance becomes impossible by the perishing of the thing, without fault, then the party is released from the promise.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R 261 - Supervening Impractability

A

If the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an event on which a basic assumption of the contract is made, a party may be released.

IOW: there was a basic assumption the event would not occur.

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

Force Majure Clause

A

a list of events that would excuse a party from performing due to impractability

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

Mistake

A

Belief not in accordance with the facts that:
- has a material effect
- and was a basic assumption on which the contract was made

Grieved party is released unless they bear the risk

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

Mutual Mistake

A

Both parties mistaken

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

Unilateral Mistake

A

One party mistaken and

(a) enforcement would be unconscionable OR

(b) the other party had reason to know of the mistake and did not alert them to it.

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

Bears the risk

A
  • risk is allocated to him per the agreement
  • they were aware of their limited knowledge and treated it as sufficient
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Sherwood v. Walker
(Cow Case)

A

Rose of Aberlone

the mistake of the parties “went to the whole substance of the agreement” as to what was being sold

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

Lenawee Party

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

Anderson v. Omeara
(Dredge Case)

A

No mutual mistake because the seller was aware of the dredge’s capabilities.

There was a unilateral mistake, but the plaintiff bore the risk because he had a lack of knowledge he considered efficient.

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

Promises of the parties are generally dependent

A

Constructive Conditions

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

R 234

A
  1. If party exchange can be done simultaneously, it is due simultaneously.
  2. If one party performance takes a period of time, his is due early
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Jacobs and Young v. Kent

A

If a party substantially performs, insignificant deviations are not forfeiture

In this case, the differences in value are the appropriate damages

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

OW Grun Roofing

A

if the deficiency in the contractor’s performance is so pervasive that it frustrates the purpose of the contract, substantial performance does not apply

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

Perfect Tender Rule - UCC

A

Buyer can reject goods for any imperfection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

2-508

A

Buyer can cure imperfect tender if there is time left

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Fanok v. Canover Boat
(burning boat)

A

Rejection for perfect tender must be made in reasonable time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Duty of good faith

A

exactly what it sounds like
- most applicable in satisfaction clauses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Wood v. Lucy Lady Duff

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Bloor v. Falstaff

A
22
Q

Unconscionability

A

When no one defense fully applies but the contract is unjust

  • most courts require both procedural and substantive uncon.
23
Q

William v walker thomas
(furniture)

A

furniture payments

24
Q

Procedural Unconscionability

A

Absence of meaningful choice

  • bargaining power
  • ability to understand contract
  • fine print
  • deception
25
Q

Substantive Unconscionability

A

unreasonably unfavorable terms

  • fairness
  • one sidedness
26
Q

Federal Arbitration Act

A

You can hardly raise uncon. unless about the arbitration clause itself

27
Q

contracts of adhesion

A

“take it or leave it”

procedural unconscionability

28
Q

Modification

A

typically require fresh consideration
- softened by UCC and R2

in any modification case you can try to argue duress

29
Q

Alaska Packers

A

If parties enter a new agreement under which one party agrees to do no more than he was already obligated to do under an existing contract, the new agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration.

30
Q

Standard Finance v. Ellis

A
31
Q

Austin Instruments

A

“give us more money or we will not perform”

  • there are cases where this is theoretically appropriate.
32
Q

Economic Duress

A

a threat not to perform under a contract, as in this case, or a threat not to do business any more

33
Q

Duress (General)

A

improper threat that leaves a party with no reasonable alternative

not all threats are improper

34
Q

Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School District

A

P was pressured into resigning without lawyers in his own home by his boss
- Undue Influence

35
Q

Undue Influence

A

One person is overcoming anothers will without convincing their judgement

-

36
Q

Hank v Powder Hills

A

Exculpatory clause that protects liability for one’s own negligence is against public policy

37
Q

R 195

A

Basically Powder Hills ruling

38
Q

Valley Medical

A

Noncompetes violate public policy if they do not protect a legitimate business interest

39
Q

Misrepresentation

A

assent is induced by either a fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by opposing or third party

40
Q

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

A
  • knows an assertion is not in accordance of the facts
  • does not have the confidence or basis that he states
41
Q

Material Misrepresentation

A

if it would be likely to induce a reasonable person to manifest his assent, or if the maker knows that it would be likely to induce the recipient to do so

42
Q

Misrepresentation through Concealment

A

Action intended or known to be likely to prevent another from learning a fact is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist.

43
Q

Misrepresentation through Non-Disclosure

A

(a) where he knows that disclosure of the fact is necessary to prevent some previous assertion from being a misrepresentation

(b) where he knows that disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the other party as to a basic assumption

(c) where he knows that disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the other party as to the contents or effect of a writing,

d) where the other person is entitled to know the fact because of a relation of trust and confidence between them.

44
Q

Reed v. King
(murder house)

A

Not letting P know that murders occurred in the house, which depreciated the value, is non-disclosure

45
Q

Stambovsky
(ghost)

A

Pretty narrow rule: their conduct created a duty to disclose the ghost

46
Q

Laidlaw v. Oregon

A

ANDREW JACKSON WOOWOO

47
Q

Obde
(termites)

A

Termites

Parties to a transaction have a duty to disclose material facts whenever justice, equity, and fair dealing demand

48
Q

LN Grove v. Chapman
(Disney)

A

Disney

both parties were speculating, and that’s not a misrepresentation.

49
Q

Statute of Frauds

A

Requires some contracts to be in writing

MYLEGS

50
Q

MYLEGS

A

Marriage
Year
Land
Executor
Goods (500 or more)
Surety

For our purposes, the important ones are sale of land, 1 year provision, and UCC sale of goods