Introduction to Contract Law Flashcards
Lucy v. Zehmer: What is the objective evidence for there being a contract?
When lucy asked for zehmers wife to be included resulting in the contract being edited to include his wife, lucy contacting an attorney after contract negotiations at the bar, etc.
specific performance
a court is compelling you to do a certain thing
Injunction
the court stopping you from doing something
agreement of mutual assent
both parties of a contract agreeing to its contents
Lucy v. Zehmer: Evidence against a contract existing
Zehmer refused to bind the contract with the $5, several witnesses said both Zehmer and Lucy were drunk, Zehmer did not directly hand over the contract to Lucy, the contract was written on the back of a restaurant check
What is objective theory in law?
The objective theory of contracts holds that an agreement between parties is legally binding if, in the opinion of a reasonable person who is not a party to the contract, an offer has been made and accepted.
What are the advantages of the objective theory?
the courts don’t have to second guess what people thought/meant, there’s uniformality in how people are treated, predictable set of rules, avoids people from saying “im kidding” to get out of an agreement, encourages others to trust those who make contracts with them- more likely to enter into a deal- encourages commerce- socially beneficial
What are the disadvantages of the objective theory?
if you rely on a solely objective form people can be forced into deals they wouldn’t have agreed to, leads to the signing of agreements with tech companies that are technically enforceable
What are expectation damages?
a forward looking remedy, most common remedy for breach of contract, tries to put you where you expected to be if the person kept their promises, you can recover the difference of where you are vs. where you expected to be
Based on the idea of expectation damages, if you enter into a contract to paint someone’s house and receive $100 for the job and you were going to spend $10 on the paint then the other party cancels the contract after you purchased the paint, what could you recover?
You would have expected to be up $90, so because you purchased the paint for $10, you would be awarded $100
Lucy v. Zehmer: facts
Defendant, husband and wife Zehmer, sold their farm to plaintiff, two brothers Lucy, for $50k via a signed contract. When Lucy attempted to finalize the sale, Zehmer argued the contract is void since it was promised on a joke toward Lucy and that Zehmer as drunk when signing. Lucy sued for specific performance (in VA supreme court of appeal)
Lucy v. Zehmer: legal issue
Whether a contract for the sale of a property can be upheld if it was made under the premise of a joke by the seller.
Lucy v. Zehmer: holding
Yes, a contract for the sale of a property can be upheld if it was made under the premise of a joke by the seller
Lucy v. Zehmer: reasoning
Zehmer was not too drunk to enter into contract. Also, we cannot look at the sellers unwritten intent to determine if a contract is valid or not. We must only refer to their written word. Lucy reasonably believed it was a true sale and valid contract when signing.
Foreseeability
A reasonable or likely consequence of an act.
Restitution
Restitution is putting a promisor where they would have been if the contract were not created in the first place
with the painting example, what would be the reliance interest?
the bucket of paint
In Lucy v. Zehmer, what is the reliance interest?
The amount Lucy paid the attorney to look over the title
Is restitution a legal or equitable remedy?
equitable
In a court case, who is usually the promisor and who is usually the promisee?
Promisee is plaintiff, Defendant is promisor (usually)
Shaheen v. Knight: facts
Dr. Knight, Def, performed vasectomy on Shaheen, plaintiff. Shaheen’s wife became pregnant. Shaheen sued for breach of contract. The damages is supporting a child who shouldn’t exist. Dr. Knight claims this lawsuit is against public policy and that physicians need not provide a “implied warranty of cure”, that there are no damages, and he did not perform negligence.
Shaheen v. Knight: issue
Did Dr. Knight have an implied warranty of cure? Could Shaheen recover damages for breaching contract to sterilize?
Shaheen v. Knight: holding
Dr. Knight did not have an implied warranty of cure and Shaheen could not recover damages for breaching contract to sterilize
Shaheen v. Knight: reasoning
To allow damages would mean Dr. Knight must pay for the positive aspects of child rearing- against public policy, there is no “warranty of cure” in PA, ana ction against a physician for malpractice can only occur if there is negligence
The contract in Shaheen v. Knight is what kind? Describe it
A special contract; express or explicit contract, one which clearly defines and settles the reciprocal rights and obligations of the parties, as distinguished from one which must be made out, and its terms ascertained, by the inference of the law from the nature and circumstances of the transaction.
What is assumpsit?
an action to recover damages for breach of contract; refers to breach of contract as a cause of action
Shaheen v. Knight: what is the current state of this case? What court are we in?
We are in a trial court and dealing with the motion to dismiss a complaint
Shaheen v. Knight: What was Dr. Knight’s first argument and how did the court respond?
its against public policy to have a contract for a vasectomy- some segment of society would find this distasteful the court responded by saying that a contract to sterilize a man is not void as against public policy and public morals. It was so held in Christensen v. Thornby
Shaheen v. Knight: What was the 2nd argument by Dr. Knight and how did the court respond?
The dr. was saying the relationship between dr. and patient could be distorted if contracts like this could be enforced. The court responds: it is a contractual relationship if the results aren’t obtained a patient has a cause of action for the breach of contract. This is different than malpractice which relies of negligence claims
Shaheen v. Knight: What is the 3rd argument by Dr. Knight and how did the court respond?
No implied warranty of care under PA law and the court responded saying that a doctor and his patient, are at liberty to contract for a particular result but there is no “implied warranty of cure”. If that result be not attained, the patient has a cause of action for breach of contract.
Why do states not usually recognize an implied warranty of care?
in any emergency incident, if a patient was brought in under critical condition, and the doctor failed to care for them, the doctor could be sued and doctors would be unwilling to perform procedures, especially risky ones and the prices of care would go up because of the higher liability, and doctors would need to explain in great detail and guarded language before doing anything
Shaheen v. Knight: What is the 4th argument by Dr. Knight and how did the court respond?
The plaintiff did not charge lack of skill, malpractice, or negligence- maybe they would have a case if they filed under that but because they filed under failure to achieve intended results
Shaheen v. Knight: What is the 5th argument by Dr. Knight and how did the court respond?
The plaintiff suffered no damages; the birth was normal, there are positive aspects of raising a child, and it goes against the idea of contract law contract law which is not “you suffered damages” its “your expectation wasn’t fulfilled”- bad
Shaheen v. Knight: Why did the plaintiff sue under breach of contract?
because he could recover expectation damages! which is why he didn’t sue under negligence and it may be harder to sue under negligence (its murkier, have to show what the standard of care should have been)
Shaheen v. Knight: what was the public policy argument by the court?
To allow damages in this case for the rearing of a child would go against universal public policy; so even though there was a contract, it wont be enforced
Shaheen v. Knight: Why was this case unique?
Having a contract means there is a legal remedy so its weird for the court to say there was a contract but there is no remedy; they were trying to keep the contractual element and societal element different. If you have a child you cant force someone else to pay for the child
