The Cases

Question 1

Beard Implement Co. v. Krusa

Answer 1

Purchase of tractor. If document expressly requires signature, then no acceptance without it.

Question 2

Day v. Caton

Answer 2

Wall built on the property line. Silence + benefit of services = voluntary acceptance. Or implied-in-law contract

Question 3

Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Answer 3

Arbitration clause inside box. No express consent = no agreement (silence ≠ acceptance here).

Question 4

Davis v. Jacoby

Answer 4

Couple assures uncle that they will travel to take care of aunt, and promises provisions for this in will; but no provisions made after all.

If it’s unclear as to what the mode of acceptance should be, courts should favor mode of acceptance that a reasonable person would assume is objective

Question 5

2949 Inc. v. McCorkle

Answer 5

• This case references two exceptions to the general rule of revocation: option contracts and firm offer rule
• Option contract: requires separate consideration; offeree pays money to keep the offer open
• Firm offer rule: UCC (applies to sale of goods); checklist: goods? between merchants? signed writing?

Question 6

Phillips v. Moor

Answer 6

Default rule: if you accept the purchase of goods, ownership of the good shifts to you at the moment of acceptance, even before you physically have the goods

Question 7

Northrop Corp. v. Litronic Industries

Answer 7

Sale of computer boards. UCC §2-207: different terms in counteroffer (knockout rule—competing terms drop out, gaps filled by UCC).

Question 8

Hamer v. Sidway

Answer 8

Uncle-nephew agreement, $5k for refraining from drinking, smoking, etc. Forbearance can constitute consideration.

Question 9

Batsakis v. Demotsis

Answer 9

500k drach. (~$25) for $2k. Inadequate of consideration doesn’t void contract. (Adequacy of Consideration)

Question 10

Schnell v. Nell

Answer 10

1 cent in consideration for $200 in will. Consideration must be something of real value otherwise it’s essentially just a gift

Question 11

1464-Eight, Ltd. v. Joppich

Answer 11

Demonstrates an exemption to the rule of Options Contracts a majority of states adopt

Big picture: the exception to the UCC Options Contract Rule is that consideration is not required for the Options contract to be binding

Question 12

Fiege v. Boehm

Answer 12

It’s not forbearance if you don’t give up a legal right

Would an objective reasonable person believe the legal right was valid or possible?

Question 13

Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon

Answer 13

Influencer doesn’t keep to exclusive contract.

Implied duty of good faith & fair dealing—(“best efforts/reasonable efforts”) beyond the words in a contract itself, there are certain things that are implied in every contract

Question 14

Mills v. Wyman

Answer 14

Son returning from sea dies after cared for by stranger; father promises to pay expenses, but doesn’t. Past consideration is no consideration; moral obligation is not legal obligation.

Question 15

Webb v. McGowin

Answer 15

This is a narrow exception (don’t read it too broadly), but there are some circumstances where if the court thinks there’s a strong moral duty, then a subsequent moral promise, this could meet one side of a quid pro quo

Question 16

Harris v. Watson

Answer 16

Ship in danger, captain offers to pay for “extra work,” but reneges. Is not bound due to the Preexisting duty rule.

Question 17

Stilk v. Myrick

Answer 17

There are 2 men who drop out of working on the ship, so an agreement is made that the other men on the boat will split the work for an equal distribution of the pay the men would have receive

Not bound to this due to pre-existing duty rule

Question 18

Lingenfelder v. Wainwright Brewery Co.

Answer 18

Architect pissed because didn’t get new contract, promised more money to continue work, but wasn’t paid extra. Preexisting duty rule.

Question 19

Universal Computer Systems v. Medical Services Association of Pennsylvania

Answer 19

Blue Shield bids for lease of computer, promise isn’t kept to pick up bid from airport. Promise led to reliance; promissory estoppel.

Question 20

Morrison v. Thoelke

Answer 20

Mailbox Rule: Acceptance takes place once it’s in the mail, not when it’s received

Question 21

Commerce v. Bayer

Answer 21

• When parties disagree on the terms of a contract, it can be resolved by evaluating: custom, usage, and course of dealings
• If past course of dealing between the parties is unavailable, look to the industry standard “

Question 22

Schnell v. Perlmon

Answer 22

• Accord = new offer; Satisfaction = accepting the new offer in a good faith show of agreement

Question 23

Hawkins v. McGee

Answer 23

“Hairy hand” case; doctor promised 100% perfect hand, didn’t deliver

Case for expectation damages (= expected profit + incidental damages)

Question 24

Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal and Mining

Answer 24

Peeveyhouse leased farm to let Garland mine, Garland failed to fill holes at end of contract term

Expectation damages case

Question 25

Santorini Cabs v. Banco Popular

Answer 25

Santorini tried purchasing 2 taxi cab medallions but agreement fell through

Unless its an item that cannot be purchase on the free market, we value it at the time of breach

Question 26

Sullivan v. O’Connor

Answer 26

Entertainer was promised a better nose, her nose was made worse after an add’l surgery

Reliance damages = getting the P back to where they started, as if the contract never happened

Question 27

Kafka v. Hess

Answer 27

Aunt acted in bad faith to repair a house that belonged to nephew, could not recover damages

Restitution only awarded when in “good faith”, not voluntary or when being an intermeddler

Question 28

US v. Algernon

Answer 28

Subcontractor performed 28% of contract, court ordered D to pay for services rendered

In very rare circumstances, a party can request restitution damages when expectation was available

Question 29

Chodos v. West Publishing Co.

Answer 29

Engineer-turned-lawyer spent 3 years writing a legal book, just to be told when it was done that it wasn’t marketable. Court found a breach

Restitution damages

Question 30

Laclede v. Amoco Oil

Answer 30

Propane supplier tried to back out of contract, court ordered specific performance instead of monetary damages because there was no one else who could provide the service

Equitable remedy: specific performance is appropriate where no monetary award could rectify the breach

Question 31

Maglica v. Maglica

Answer 31

Man and woman act as husband and wife, work together for 20 years, wife cannot recover

Quantum Meruit: reward is only paying the value of the services rendered

Question 32

Merry Gentlemen v. Michael Keaton

Answer 32

Merry Gentlemen sued Keaton for making a flop movie; Keaton did substantially perform

Substantial performance: where a D has substantially performed on the contract, P cannot recover the whole amount

Question 33

Freund v. Washington Square Press

Answer 33

Professor wants to publish a book but failed to adequately plead what the royalties would have been

Certainty: P must be able to reasonably calculate the damages to receive a monetary award

Question 34

Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co.

Answer 34

Companies agreed to an amount that a breaching party would pay, court found the amount punitive

Liquidated damages: Set number that’s predetermined by both parties before the start of the contract to determine how much a party would be responsible to pay in the event they breach the contract (can also be calculated after breach), as long as it’s not punitive

Question 35

Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor

Answer 35

Man tries to get faulty car fixed, D engages in fraud, doesn’t fix

Punitive damages are available where there’s evidence of fraud

Question 36

Hadley v. Baxendale

Answer 36

Courier couldn’t have known mill would be so damaged by a late delivery

Limits on recovery: Foreseeability
A party must reasonably give the other party notice of potential loss from a breach of the contract; assumes that P would have acted differently had they reasonably foreseen the potential loss (either through notice or reasonable assumption)

Question 37

Humetrix v. Gemplus

Answer 37

Humetrix wanted to develop vaccination cards but Gemplus engaged in shady dealings/ghosting/gaslighting

Battle of the experts & certainty:

To be awarded damages, a P must be able to provide sufficient evidence to show the amount of damages with reasonable certainty, otherwise the amount is too speculative, certainty can be established through expert testimony

Question 38

Rockingham Cty. v. Luten Bridge Co.

Answer 38

Bridge company completed contract after there was a clear breach

Unavoidability/Duty to Mitigate: Non-breaching party has a duty to mitigate (make less severe) the amount of damages incurred by them

Duty to mitigate aims to avoid punishing the breaching party by forcing them to pay more than required (punishment = punitive; not a goal of contract law)

P can’t intentionally make damages “worse”

Question 39

Parker v. 20th Century-Fox

Answer 39

D breaches contract with actress, she does not accept their second offer

P is only required to mitigate by accepting/seeking reasonably equal contract

Question 40

Waddle v. Elrod

Answer 40

Shady niece and aunt go back and forth about the sale of land; electronic email signatures from attorneys satisfy statute of frauds

For the Statute of Frauds to apply, the contract must be 1) written and 2) signed

Question 41

Professional Bull Riders v. AutoZone, Inc.

Answer 41

Parties disagreed about whether a sponsorship agreement could be completed within a year

Statute of Frauds Year Rule: if a contract can be fulfilled in full in under a year, it does not fall within the statute of frauds and does not need to be in writing

Question 42

Eastern Dental Corp. v. Isaac Masel Co.

Answer 42

Dental company and dental equipment company had a contract, but did not specify quantity of goods. SoF did not apply

Quantity of goods must be in a contract for the sale of goods more than $500 to be enforceable under Statute of Frauds

Question 43

Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.

Answer 43

Woman hires guy to work in makeup sales, D tries not to allow two writings in to be added to the contract; court allows them in

Signed and unsigned writings can be put together to satisfy the statute of frauds when: 1. They clearly refer to the same subject matter/transaction 2.Have a lot of overlap

Question 44

Wagers v. Associated Mortgage Investors

Answer 44

P was negotiating with D to purchase lots, whether earnest money agreements and attorney letters satisfied SoF; courts said no

Statute of Frauds Land rule 2/3rds rule:

1. Delivery and assumption of actual and exclusive possession of land (someone has handed over the ownership of the land)
2. Payment or tender of the consideration, whether in money, other property, or services has occurred (a payment has been made)
3. The making of permanent, subtantial, and valuable improvements, referable to the contract (whoever’s supposed to get the land has started working on it)

Question 45

Thomason Printing Machinery v. BF Goodrich

Answer 45

P bought printing machine, sent to wrong place, D was liable for failing to send the printing machine

Merchants Exception (sale of goods between merchants, if one party puts out a signed writing, other party must send objection otherwise they can’t use statute of frauds defense)

Question 46

McIntosh v. Murphy

Answer 46

P got hired by D to sell cars in Hawaii, P relied on D’s promise of a job, sued when he was fired shortly after moving

Partial performance is sufficient to enforce a contract when a party relied on other party’s promise, even when the contract was not in writing (can use promissory or equitable estoppel to overcome requirements of SoF)