Exam 3 Flashcards
Alexus gives Kaitlyn a “dealer franchise” to sell Alexus’s products in a stated area for one year. In preparation for performance, Kaitlyn spends money on advertising, hiring sales personnel, and acquiring premises that cannot be used for other purpose. Alexus then repudiates before performance begins.
If neither party proves with reasonable certainty what profit or loss Kaitlyn would have made if the contract had been performed, Kaitlyn can recover as damages her expenditures in preparation for performance.
Alexus contracts with Kaitlyn to stage a series of performances in Kaitlyn’s theater, each to have 50 per cent of the gross receipts. After Alexus has spent 20,000 in getting ready for the performance, Kaitlyn rents the theater to others and repudiates the contract, and Alexus stages the performance at another theater. Alexus’s expenditures in preparation for performance of the contract with Kaitlyn are worth 8,000 to him in connection with staging the performances at the other theater.
If neither party proves with reasonable certainty what profit or loss Alexus would have made if the contract had been performed, Alexus can recover as damages the 12,000 balance of her expenditures in preparation for performance.
Alexus contracts to build a factory of experimental design for 1,000,000. After Alexus has spent 250,000 and been paid 150,000 in progress payments, Kaitlyn repudiates the contract and Alexus stops work. Alexus’s expenditures include materials worth 10,000 that she can use on other jobs.
If neither party proves with reasonable certainty what profit or loss Alexus would have made if the contract had been performed, Alexus can recover as damages the 90,000 balance of her expenditures in preparation for performance.
Alexus contracts to sell her retail to Kaitlyn. After Kaitlyn has spent 100,000 for inventory, Alexus repudiates the contract and Kaitlyn sells the inventory for 60,000. If neither party proves with reasonable certainty what profit or loss Kaitlyn would have made if the contract had been performed,
, Kaitlyn can recover as damages the 40,000 loss that she sustained on the sale of the inventory.
(two options for answer) Alexus, a carpenter, contracts to repair Kaitlyn’s roof for 3,000. Alexus does part of the work at a cost of 2,000, increasing the market price of Kaitlyn’s house by 1,200. The market price to have a similar carpenter do the work done by Alexus is 1,800. Alexus restitution interest is equal to the benefit conferred on Kaitlyn. That benefit may be measured either by the addition to Kaitlyn’s wealth from Alexus’s services in terms of 1,2000 increase in the market price of Kaitlyn’s house or the reasonable value to Kaitlyn of Alexus’s services in terms of the 1,800 that it would have cost Kaitlyn to engage a similar carpenter to do the same work.
If the work was not completed because of a breach by Alexus and restitution is based on the rule stated in 374, 1,200 is appropriate. If the work was not completed because of a breach by Kaitlyn and restitution is based on the rule stated 373, 1,8000 is appropriate
Alexus, a surgeon, contracts to perform a series of emergency operations on Kaitlyn for 3,000. Alexus does the first operation, saving Kaitlyn’s life, which can be valued in view of Kaitlyn’s life expectancy at 1,000,000. The market price to have an equally competent surgeon do the first operation 1,800. Alexus’s restitution is equal to the benefit conferred on Kaitlyn.
That benefit is measured by the reasonable value to Kaitlyn of Alexus’s services in terms of the 1,800 that it would have cost Kaitlyn to engage a similar surgeon to do the operation regardless of the rule on which restitution is based.
Alexus, a social worker, promises Kaitlyn to render personal services to Anna in return for Kaitlyn’s promise to educate Alexus’s children. Alexus renders only part of the services and Kaitlyn then refuses to educate Alexus’s children. The market price to have a similar social worker do the services rendered by Alexus is 1,800
If Alexus recovers in restitution under the rule stated in 373, an appropriate measure of the benefit conferred on Kaitlyn is the reasonable value to Kaitlyn of Alexus’s services in terms of the 1,8000 that it would have cost Kaitlyn to engage a similar social worker to do the same.
Alexus contracts to sell a tract of land to Kaitlyn for 100,000. After Kaitlyn has made a part payment of 20,000, Alexus wrongfully refuses to transfer title. Kaitlyn can recover the 20,000 in restitution.
The result is the same even if the market price of the land is only 70,000, so that performance would have been disadvantageous to Kaitlyn
Alexus contracts to build a house for Kaitlyn for 100,000, progress payments to be made monthly. After having been paid 40,000 for two months, Alexus commits a breach that is not material by inadvertently using the wrong bran of sewer pipe.
Kaitlyn has a claim for damages for partial breach but cannot recover the 40,000 that she has paid Alexus.
On Feb 1st, Alexus and Kaitlyn make a contract under which, as consideration for Kaitlyn’s immediate payment of 50,000, Alexus promises to convey to Kaitlyn a parcel of land on May 1. On March 1, Alexus repudiates by selling the parcel to Anna. On April 1, Kaitlyn commences an action against Anna.
Although under the rule stated in 253, Kaitlyn has no claim against Alexus for damages for breach of contract until performance is due on May 1, Kaitlyn can recover 50,000 from Alexus in restitution.
Alexus, who holds a mortgage on Kaitlyn’s land, promises Kaitlyn that he will not foreclose the mortgage for another year, even if Kaitlyn makes no payments. In reliance on Alexus’s promise, Kaitlyn makes valuable improvements. Alexus forecloses in breach of her promise and buys the land at a judicial sale for the amount of the mortgage debt.
Kaitlyn can recover in restitution for the value of the improvements.
Alexus contracts to work for Kaitlyn for one month for 10,000. After Alexus has fully performed, Kaitlyn repudiates that contract and refuses to pay the 10,000.
Alexus can get damages against Kaitlyn for 10,000, together with interest, but cannot recover more than that sum even if she can show that the benefit to Kaitlyn from the services was greater than 10,000.
Alexus contracts to build a building for Kaitlyn in return for Kaitlyn’s promise to transfer a tract of land to Alexus and to pay 10,000. After Alexus has built the building, Kaitlyn refuses to transfer title or to pay the 10,000.
Alexus has a right to the reasonable value of his work and materials.
Alexus contracts to build a building for Kaitlyn in return for Kaitlyn’s promise to transfer a tract of land to Alexus and to pay 10,000. After Alexus has built the building, Kaitlyn refuses to transfer title or to pay the 10,000.
Alexus has a right to the reasonable value of her work and materials.
Alexus contracts to work as a consultant for Kaitlyn for a fee of 50,000, payable at the end of the year, together with a payment of 200 a month for Alexus’s use of her own car and reimbursement of Alexus’s expenses. Kaitlyn wrongfully discharges Alexus at the end of the six months.
Alexus cannot recover in restitution for the use of her car or for her expenses but can recover for these items as provided in the contract.
Alexus contracts to build a house for Kaitlyn for 50,000, progress payments to be made monthly in an amount equal to 85 percent of the price of the work performed during the preceding month, the balance to be paid on the architect’s certificate of satisfactory completion of the house. Kaitlyn makes the first three payments and then repudiates the contract and has another builder finish the house. Alexus can recover in restitution for the reasonable value of her work, labor and materials, less the amount of the three payments.
The performance during each month and the corresponding progress payments are not agreed equivalents under the rule stated in 240.
Alexus, a plumbing subcontractor, contracts with Kaitlyn, a general contractor, to install the plumbing in a factory being built by Kaitlyn for Anna. Kaitlyn promises to pay Alexus 100,000. After Alexus has spent 40,000, Kaitlyn repudiates the contract and has the plumbing finished by another subcontractor at a cost of 80,000.
The market price to have a similar plumbing subcontractor do the work done by Alexus is 40,000. Alexus can recover the 40,000 from Kaitlyn in restitution.
Alexus contracts to build a house for Kaitlyn for 100,000. After Alexus has spent 40,000, Kaitlyn discovers that she does not have good title to the land on which the house is to be build. Kaitlyn repudiates the contract and abandons the project. Alexus’s work results in no actual benefit to Kaitlyn.
Alexus cannot recover the restitution from Kaitlyn, but under rule stated in 349 she can recover as damages 40,000 that she has spent unless Kaitlyn proves with reasonable certainty that Alexus would have sustained a net loss if the contract had been performed.
Alexus contracts to work as a consultant for Kaitlyn for a fee of 50,000, payable at the end of the year. Kaitlyn wrongfully discharges Alexus at the end of eleven months.
Alexus can recover in restitution based on the reasonable value of her services. The terms of the contract are evidence of this value but are not conclusive.
Alexus contracts to build a bridge for Kaitlyn for 100,000. Kaitlyn repudiates the contract shortly after Alexus has begun work on the bridge, telling Alexus that she no longer has need for it. Alexus nevertheless spends an additional 10,000 in continuing to perform.
Alexus’s restitution interest under the rule stated in 370 does not include the benefit conferred on Kaitlyn by the 10,000.
Alexus contracts to sell land to Kaitlyn for 100,000, which Kaitlyn promises to pay in 10,000 installments before transfer of title. After Kaitlyn has paid 30,000 she fails to pay the remaining installments and Alexus sells the land to another buyer for 95,000. Kaitlyn can recover 30,000 from Alexus in restitution less 5,000 damages for Kaitlyn’s breach of contract, or 25,000.
If Alexus does not sell the land to another buyer and obtains a decrees of specific performance against Kaitlyn, Kaitlyn has no right to restitution.
Alexus contracts to make repairs to Kaitlyn’s building in return for Kaitlyn’s promise to pay 10,000 on completion of the work. After spending 8,000 on the job, Alexus fails to complete it because of insolvency. Kaitlyn has the work completed by another builder for 4,000, increasing the value of the building to him by a total of 9,000, but he loses 500 in rent because of the delay.
Alexus can recover 5,000 from Kaitlyn in restitution less 500 in damages for the loss caused by the breach, or 4,500.
Alexus contracts to make repair to Kaitlyn’s building in return for Kaitlyn’s promise to pay 10,000 on completion of the work. Alexus makes repair costing him 8,000 but inadvertently fails to follow the specifications in such material respects that there is no substantial performance. The defects cannot be corrected without the destruction of large parts of the building, but the work confers a benefit on Kaitlyn by increasing the value of the building to him by 4,000.
Alexus can recover 4,000 from Kaitlyn in restitution.
The facts above, the defects do not require destruction of large parts of the building and can be corrected for 4,000, which will confer a benefit on Kaitlyn by increasing the value of the building to him by a total of 9,000.
Alexus can recover 5,000 from Kaitlyn in restitution.
Alexus contracts to tutor Kaitlyn’s daughter for six months in preparation for an examination, in return for which Kaitlyn promises to pay Alexus 2,000 at the end of that time. After Alexus has worked for three months, she leaves to take another job and Kaitlyn is unable to find a suitable replacement.
In the absence of any reliable basis for measuring the benefit to Kaitlyn from Alexus’s part performance, restitution will be denied.
The facts above, the contract provides that on default by Kaitlyn, Alexus has the right to retain the first 10,000 installment paid by Kaitlyn.
If 10,000 is a reasonable amount, Kaitlyn can recover only 20,000 from Kaitlyn in restitution.
Facts above, the contract provides that on default by Kaitlyn, Alexus has the right to retain any installments paid by Kaitlyn.
The provision is not valid, and Kaitlyn can still recover 30,000 from Alexus in restitution less 5,000 damages for Kaitlyn’s breach of contract, or 25,000.
Alexus makes an oral contract to furnish services to Kaitlyn that are not to be performed within a year. After Alexus has worked for two months Kaitlyn discharges him without paying him anything.
Alexus can recover from Kaitlyn as restitution the reasonable value of the services rendered during the two months.
Alexus makes an oral contract to sell a tract of land to Kaitlyn for 100,000. Kaitlyn pays 50,000, takes possession and makes improvements. Alexus then refuses to convey the land to Kaitlyn, and Kaitlyn sues Alexus for restitution of 50,000 plus 20,000, the reasonable value of the improvements, less 5,000, the value to Kaitlyn of the use of the land.
Kaitlyn can recover 65,000 from Alexus.
Alexus, a home owner, makes an oral contract with Kaitlyn, a real estate broker, to pay Kaitlyn the usual 5% commission if Kaitlyn succeeds in selling Alexus’s house. The SOF contains a provision providing that a real estate broker shall have no right to such a commission unless there is a written memorandum of the contract Kaitlyn sells Alexus’s house for 100,000 and sues Alexus in restitution for 5,000, the reasonable value of Kaitlyn’s services
Kaitlyn cannot recover in restitution because the purpose of the Statute would be frustrated if Kaitlyn were allowed to recover as restitution the same amount that had been promised under the contract.
Alexus makes an oral contract to buy a tract of land from Kaitlyn for 100,000. Payment is to be made in 10,000 installments, conveyance to be made on the payment of the third installment. Alexus pays 10,000 and then refuses to pay any more and sues Kaitlyn to recover in restitution the 10,000 that she has paid. If Kaitlyn signs a sufficient memorandum, Alexus’s refusal to pay is a defense to her action under the rule 141(1) and Alexus cannot get restitution.
If Kaitlyn refuses to sign a sufficient memorandum, Alexus’s refusal to pay is not a defense under the rule in 141(2) and Kaitlyn can get restitution.
Alexus contracts to sell an automobile to Kaitlyn, an infant, for 2,000. After Alexus has delivered the automobile and Kaitlyn has paid the 2,000, Kaitlyn disaffirms the contract on the ground of infancy, tenders the automobile back to Alexus, and sues Alexus for 2,000.
Kaitlyn can recover the 2,000 from Alexus in restitution.
Alexus contracts to sell and Kaitlyn to buy for 100,000 a tract of land, the value of which has depended mainly on the timber on it. Both Alexus and Kaitlyn believe that the timber is still there, but in fact it has been destroyed by fire. After Alexus has conveyed the land to Kaitlyn and Kaitlyn has paid the 100,000, Kaitlyn discovers the mistake. Kaitlyn disaffirms the contract for mistake, tenders a deed to the land to Alexus, and sues Alexus for 100,000.
Kaitlyn can recover 100,000 from Alexus. Kaitlyn can recover 100,000 from Alexus in restitution.
Alexus submits a 150,000 offer in response to Kaitlyn’s invitation for bids on the construction of a building. Alexus believes that this is the total of a column of figures, but she has made an error by inadvertently omitting 50,000, and fact the total is 200,000. Because Kaitlyn has estimated the expected cost as 180,000 and the 10 other bids were all in the range between 180,000 and 200,000, Kaitlyn had reason to know of Alexus’s mistake. Alexus discovers the mistake after she has done part of the work, disaffirms the contract on the ground of mistake 153, and sues Kaitlyn in restitution for the benefit conferred on Kaitlyn as measured by the reasonable value of Alexus’s performance.
Alexus can recover the reasonable value of her performance in restitution and if the cost of the work done can be determined under the next lowest bid, the cost is evidence of its reasonable value.
Alexus fraudulently induces Kaitlyn to make a contract to buy a tract of land for 100,000. After Alexus has conveyed the land and Kaitlyn has paid the price, Kaitlyn makes improvements on the land with a reasonable value of 20,000. Kaitlyn then discovers the fraud, disaffirms the contract for misrepresentation, tenders a deed to the land to Alexus, and sues Alexus for 100,000 plus 20,000, the reasonable value of the improvements, less 5,000 the value to Kaitlyn of the use of the land.
Kaitlyn can recover 115,000 in restitution from Alexus.
Alexus fraudulently induces Kaitlyn to make a contract to sell a tract of land for 100,000. After Kaitlyn has conveyed the land and Alexus has paid the price, Alexus farms the land at a net profit of 10,000. Kaitlyn then discovers the fraud, disaffirms the contract for misrepresentation, tenders back the 100,000, and sues Alexus for specific restitution plus the 10,000 profit that Alexus made by farming the land.
Kaitlyn can recover the land and 10,000 in restitution from Alexus.
Alexus contracts to sell to Kaitlyn a factory and a patent and Kaitlyn makes a party payment of 100,000. Alexus assigns the patent but fails to transfer the factory to Kaitlyn. Kaitlyn sues Alexus asking restitution of 100,000 without offering the reassign the patent.
Kaitlyn is entitled to a judgment for that amount conditional on her tender of a reassignment of the patent.
Alexus is induced by Kaitlyn’s fraudulent misrepresentations to contract to sell to Kaitlyn for 10,000 an antique worth 100,000. Alexus delivers the antique and Kaitlyn pays the 10,000. On discovery of the fraud, Alexus demands the return of the antique without offering to repay the 10,000. On Kaitlyn’s refusal, Alexus sues Kaitlyn in conversion for the value of the antique.
Alexus is entitled to a judgment for 90,000, the value of the antique less 10,000.
Facts above, Alexus sues Kaitlyn in replevin and posts a bond.
If the procedure in replevin does not permit an adequate opportunity for the determination of Alexus’s claim of fraud before return of the antique to her, replevin will be denied on the ground that she has not offered to return the 10,000.
Alexus contracts to work on Kaitlyn’s ranch in return for a number of cattle warranted by Kaitlyn to be sound. After Alexus has been the work and Kaitlyn has delivered the cattle, they are discovered to have hoof and mouth disease and are destroyed by government order.
Alexus is entitled to restitution of the reasonable value of his services.
Alexus puts her daughter in Kaitlyn’s private school, paying a year’s tuition in advance. During the first month of school, the daughter to wrongfully expelled by Kaitlyn.
Alexus is entitled to restitution of the amount of tuition paid less the benefit to Alexus of Kaitlyn’s services during the first month.
Alexus contracts to buy from Kaitlyn her seat on the stock exchange, her good will and the furniture in her office and pays 10,000 as part of the price. Kaitlyn delivers the furniture and Alexus sells it to others. Later Kaitlyn refuses to perform the rest of the contract.
Alexus is entitled to restitution of 10,000 less compensation to Kaitlyn for the furniture.
Alexus contracts to lease a plow and a tractor to Kaitlyn, to be used together. The price is stated to be 200 for the plow and 500 for the tractor, and Kaitlyn pays the full 700 in advance. Alexus delivers the plow but fails to deliver the tractor. Kaitlyn can offer to return the plow and get restitution of 700.
Because the prices are apportioned, Kaitlyn can also keep the plow and get restitution of 500.
Alexus contracts to employ as a confidential secretary for a month for 2,000, to be paid at the end of that time. Kaitlyn falls ill after working for two weeks and the duties of performance of both Alexus and Kaitlyn are discharged as a result of impracticability of performance. Kaitlyn is entitled to restitution from Alexus for the services that she has performed.
The results is the same if Kaitlyn’s duty is discharged as a result of Alexus’s illness rather than Kaitlyn’s.
Alexus contracts to employ Kaitlyn as a confidential secretary for a month for 2,000 to be paid in advance. Kaitlyn falls ill after Alexus has paid the 2,000 but before Kaitlyn has begun work and the duties of performance of both Alexus and Kaitlyn are discharged as a result of impracticability of performance.
Alexus is entitled to restitution of 2,000 from Kaitlyn. If Kaitlyn had fallen ill after working for two weeks, Kaitlyn would also be entitled to restitution form Alexus for the services that she has performed.
Alexus contracts to sell and Kaitlyn to buy a house for 50,000, conditional on approval by X’s Bank of Kaitlyn’s pending mortgage application. Kaitlyn pays Alexus 5,000 when the contract is signed. In spite of reasonable efforts by Kaitlyn, the X bank does not approve her application and her duty of performance is discharged.
Kaitlyn is entitled to restitution of 5,000 from Alexus.
Alexus contracts with Kaitlyn to shingle the roof of Kaitlyn’s house for 5,000, payable as the work progresses. After Alexus has spent 2,000 doing part of the work and has been paid 1,8000, much of the house including the roof is destroyed by fire without her fault, and the duties of performance of both Alexus and Kaitlyn are discharged as a result of impracticability of performance. The work done before the fire increased the market price and the insurable value of the house by 1,5000.
Alexus is entitled to restitution of 1,500 from Kaitlyn and Kaitlyn is entitled to restitution of 1,8000 from Alexus.
Facts above, the fire also destroyed shingles that had cost Alexus 500 and that were piled near the house for the rest of the work. Alexus is not entitled to restitution of this loss from Kaitlyn. Nor can Alexus subtract the 500 from the 1,800 she has been paid in determining the benefit that she has received.
The court may, however, take this loss into consideration in deciding whether to allow Alexus restitution of 1,500 or 2,000.
Alexus contracts to paint some bizarre frescoes in Kaitlyn’s house for 10,000. The frescoes will not increase the market value of the house. Alexus dies after the frescoes have been partly completed. Other artists can adequately complete the work and will do so for 6,000. Alexus’s executors are entitled to restitution of 4,000 from Kaitlyn. If they can prove that Alexus’s price was unusually low because of Alexus’s lack of employment and an economic depression and that the work was roughly half finished,
the court may properly allow restitution of 5,000.
Alexus contracts to tutor Kaitlyn’s daughter for six months in preparation for an examination, in return for which Kaitlyn promises to pay Alexus 2,000 at the end of that time. After Alexus has worked for 3 months, Kaitlyn’s daughter becomes ill and the duties of performance of both Alexus and Kaitlyn are discharged as a result of impracticability of performance. Other tutors would have charged 800 to do the work that Alexus has done.
Alexus is entitled to restitution of 800 from Kaitlyn. Even if the tutors would have changed 1,2000, Alexus is entitled to restitution of only 1,000 from Kaitlyn unless from Kaitlyn unless she can show that the first half of the work was more burdensome.
Alexus is induced by Kaitlyn’s misrepresentation to sell a tract of land to Kaitlyn for 100,000. On discovery of the misrepresentation, Alexus tenders back the 100,000 and sues Kaitlyn for specific restitution of the land.
Specific restitution will be granted.
Alexus contracts to transfer a tract of land to Kaitlyn in return for Kaitlyn’s promise to transfer a tract of land to Alexus at the same time. After Alexus has transferred her tract to Kaitlyn and received a deed from Kaitlyn, Alexus learns that Kaitlyn does not have title to other tract. Alexus sues Kaitlyn for specific restitution. Specific restitution will be granted, together with compensation to Alexus for the value to Kaitlyn of the use of the land, because the right to specific restitution will not unduly interfere with the certainty of title to land.
If Kaitlyn’s promise is to transfer her tract to Alexus 10 years after Alexus’s transfer of her tract, specific restitution will be denied because a right to specific restitution would unduly interfere with certainty of title to land during the 10 years.
Alexus contact to transfer a tract of land to Kaitlyn in return for Kaitlyn’s promise to support Alexus for life. Kaitlyn repudiates the contract after she has supported Alexus for a time and Alexus has transferred the land to her, and Alexus sues Kaitlyn for specific restitution.
Specific restitution will be granted, conditional on compensation by Alexus for any support that she has received less the value to Kaitlyn of the use of the land, because the right to specific restitution will not unduly interfere with the certainty of title to land given the inadequacy of Alexus’s right to damages because of the difficulty of proving damages with sufficient certainty.
Alexus contracts to transfer a tract of land to Kaitlyn in return for Kaitlyn’s promise to transfer a tract of land to Alexus at a later date. After Alexus has transferred her tract of land to Kaitlyn, Kaitlyn sells both tracts to Anna, a good faith purchaser for value, taking a mortgage to secure the balance of the price on the tract transferred by Alexus. Alexus sues Kaitlyn and Anna for specific restitution.
SR will be denied but Alexus can get a decree subrogating her to Kaitlyn’s right to the balance of the price and to her rights under the purchase money mortgage that secures it.