MBE Contracts Flashcards
When a promisor reserves the right to change his mind in a contract that is otherwise valid,
E.g.,
“[the wholesaler] reserves the right to cancel this order at any time before September 1.”
Is there still a valid contract?
No. Unless the right to change his mind is limited by some objective standard, then consideration may be found and the contract will be upheld.
Otherwise… it’s an ILLUSORY PROMISE–a statement that appears to be promising something but does not actually commit the promisor to anything at all
promisor reserves the right to change his mind, does not bind the promisor and is therefore illusory
Are Illusory Promises enforceable?
No; they b/c fail to actually commit/bind the promisor to anything.
ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION
When the date of performance has not passed and the promisee has fully performed, the promisee must
wait until the promisor’s performance is due before filing suit
In this situation, anticipatory breach is inapplicable; the promisee must wait for actual breach before filing suit.
***Typically, this occurs when the promisor’s obligation is the payment of MONEY under COMMON LAW
UCC Sale of Goods
If a distributor shipped NON-conforming goods (seven crates instead of eight), but the grocer accepted the shipment, and then told the distributor they’re NCG, what does the distributor have the right to collect from the grocer?
Contract Price for those goods (-) minus damages to Grocer for the Distributors breach
Even though they were NCG and the grocer told the manufacturer, the grocer accepted the shipment,
—> rendering the grocer obligated to pay the CONTRACT PRICE of the ACCEPTED goods – minus any damages caused by the distributor’s breach
Under (UCC § 2-206), the effect of a Seller’s acceptance of Buyer’s offer under the two different methods below results in an agreement based on what terms?
PROMISE to ship (When oral promise made OR When written promise sent)
vs
Shipment of goods (When goods shipped)
PROMISE TO SHIP
WHEN all parties are MERCHANTS
– terms of offer
– + terms added by battle-of-forms rule
WHEN ≥1 party is nonmerchant
– terms of offer
– new terms are merely proposed additions
SHIPMENT OF GOODS
Terms of offer (e.g. in the purchase order)
Acceptance by shipment is effective immediately and creates a contract with terms identical to those of the offer (e.g. the purchase order).
Once created, the contract cannot be modified unless both parties agree to the modification.
And if either party breaches, the other party can recover
consequential damages (eg, lost profits)
The statute of frauds requires that any contract that cannot be performed within one year be in writing.
Is an agreement for LIFETIME employment (i.e. the life of the individual) subject to the statute of frauds?
No… because it could be performed within a year if the employee retires or dies within one year
In an employment contract, is the employee’s salary (ie, compensation) is an essential term that could cause the contract to fail for indefiniteness?
Yes.
A court can reform (at a party’s request) a written contract that fails to accurately express the parties’ initial intent due to a mistake by both parties when:
1) the parties had a prior agreement (either oral or written)
2) the parties put that prior agreement into writingand
3) the parties’ mistake caused a difference between the prior agreement and the written agreement.
*Even if one party later denies the prior difference afterwards
Does Parol Evidence rule bar evidence of a prior/contemporaneous agreement between the parties for evidence of mistake/to reform a contract?
No.
An objection or motion to strike is TIMELY only IF
it’s made at the FIRST OPPORTUNITY
(e.g. Objecting when the words come out of the Witness’s mouth, NOT a motion to strike after the witness leaves the stand)
When is disclosure required to avoid misrepresentation?
“Poor Moms Fraudulently Misrepresent”
1) PREVIOUS ASSERTION
– Disclosure would prevent previous assertion from being a misrepresentation or fraudulent or material
2) MISTAKE ABOUT BASIC ASSUMPTION
– Disclosure would correct other party’s mistake about basic assumption of contract AND Failure to disclose would constitute lack of good faith & fair dealing
3) FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
– Other party is entitled to know fact because of confidential/fiduciary relationship
4) MISTAKE ABOUT WRITING
– Disclosure would correct other party’s mistake about contents or effect of writing that embodies agreement
If a party commits fraudulent misrep, but before the deceived party finds out/avoids the contract, the facts are cured so as to be in accord with the facts that were previously misrepresented, is the contract still voidable?
No. It is no longer voidable; Both parties may still enforce it.
A contract is no longer voidable if, following a misrepresentation but before the deceived party has avoided the contract, the facts are cured so as to be in accord with the facts that were previously misrepresented.
A court may modify or refuse to enforce a contract or part of a contract on the ground that it is unconscionable, that is, when it is
– so unfair to one party that no reasonable person in the position of the parties would have agreed to it
– could also be unfair bargaining power
Can a party reserve a right to seek remedies as a result of a breach of a land/sale contract once the party accepts conveyance and tenders payment on the closing date?
Yes.
(E.g. farmer question where possession delayed from Jan 15 to Jan 30, he loses rental value of $2,500.00 for the 15 days, but tenders $500k and moves in on Jan 30 as agreed, reserving the right to seek damages)
Illegal contracts are generally void as against public policy. But if a contract is illegal solely because a party does not have a required license, then the enforceability of the contract depends on whether the purpose behind the licensing requirement is:
economic (eg, raise revenue) – in which case the contract is enforceableor
regulatory (eg, protect public health or safety) – in which case the contract is unenforceable if the public policy behind the requirement clearly outweighs the interest in enforcing the contract.