Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

LAS204 - Contracts > Week 5 - Test 1 > Flashcards

Week 5 - Test 1 Flashcards

1
Q

(1), (2) and (3) can go further than making a contract invalid and can actually result in tort claims and punitive damages.

A
  1. Fraud
  2. Duress
  3. Misrepresentation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

damages unrelated to loss, inteded to punish

A

punitive damages

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

false statement of material fact, made with intent to deceive, on which another reasonably relies, to his detriment

A

fraud

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

fraud relating to the nature of the agreement (e.g., tell dad contract is for meds, but is actually sale of house for half value)

A

fraud in the execution

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

fraud relating to the party’s motivation in entering the contract (e.g., lie about mileage on car)

A

frau in the inducement

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

sales talk; not generally considered statements of fact

A

puffing

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

a party has a duty to disclose and knowingly conceals the truth

A

silence as fraud

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

knowledge of falsity

A

intent to deceive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

reliance on an assertion is reasonable

A

justifiable reliance

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

false statement made without intent to deceive, upon which a party justifiably relies to his detriment (e.g., carelessness, mistake)

A

misrepresentation

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

Two questions that come into play when determining misrepresentation

A
  1. Whether statement was one of fact

2. Whether injured party was justified in relying on speaker

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

all parties are mistaken about a basic assumption - basis for avoiding a contract

A

mutual mistakes

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

an assumption essential to the value of a transaction

A

basic assumption of fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

A mistake in (1) , concerning (2), or about (3) is generally not a basis for avoiding a contract.

A
  1. judgment
  2. consequences
  3. law
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

only one party is mistaken about a basic assumption; can rise to grounds for fraud

A

unilateral mistake

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

a party may be excused from contract obligations if an unforeseen circumstance makes performance impracticable

A

commercial impracticability

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

a wrongful threat, intended to induce action by the other party

A

duress

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

an agreement in which a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to settle a criminal case against the defendant

A

plea agreement

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

a dominant party takes advantage of that position in entering a contract with party under domination

A

undue influence

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

one party is obligated to act in the best interest of the other party

A

fiduciary interest

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

3 requirements to make a special relationship contract valid

A
  1. fair consideration
  2. full disclosure by dominant party
  3. independent advice for weaker party
22
Q

a contract so unreasonable it is “shocking”

A

unconscionable

23
Q

Unconscionablity can be (1) or (2)

A
  1. procedural (buried terms)

2. substantive (terms easily found in contract but clearly unfair)

24
Q

Courts rarely apply the doctrine of unconscionability to (1) or to contracts involving sophisticated parties because the doctrine assumes unequal (2).

A
  1. commercial contracts (between businesses)

2. bargaining power

25
Q

a take-it-or-leave-it contract in which one party has all of the bargaining power

A

adhesion contract

26
Q

a statement made that is not in accord with the actual facts

A

misrepresentation

27
Q

3 types of misrepresentation

A
  1. innocent (actually believe it, with good reason)
  2. negligent (fail to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining facts)
  3. fraudulent (intent to deceive)
28
Q

3 remedies for innocent or negligent misrepresentation

A
  1. uphold contract
  2. rescind on contract and void
  3. keep contract and collect damages
29
Q

You may not sue for (1) under contract law. Fraudulent misrepresentation must be sued for through the avenue of (2).

A
  1. punitive damages

2. Tort law

30
Q

Fraudulent misrepresentation is difficult to sue for because you must prove a (1).

A
  1. state of mind
31
Q

3 avenues through which you can prove state of mind for fraudulence

A
  1. seller knew/believed ascertation was untrue
  2. seller lacked confidence in the truth of his statement but presented it as fact
  3. seller implied there was a basis for the truth of his statement (e.g., he looked it up)
32
Q

For collecting damages, it must be proven that the buyer (1) on the untruthful statement

A
  1. relied
33
Q

Where there is not (1), there is a generaly rule that there is no duty to disclose info to another party.

A

statutory authority

34
Q

5 exceptions to presumed lack of duty to disclose info

A
  1. half-truths (“I’ve never see a rattlesnake”–has seen many other snakes)
  2. positive concealment (filling in cracks)
  3. failure to correct a past statement (e.g., if something new happens to the property)
  4. fiduciary relationship (obligated to look out for best interests of the person)
  5. failure to correct a known mistake (e.g., a buyer’s mistake–“red diamond”)
35
Q

A mere expression of opinion that does not relate to an (1) cannot be the basis of a claim of (2) or (3) unless the person stating the opinion has (4) or (5) knowledge.

A
  1. existing fact
  2. fraud
  3. misrepresentation
  4. exclusive
  5. superior
36
Q

Where an opinion is a (1) in a purchase, this can be misrepresentation.

A
  1. decisive factor (e.g., “fashionable” couch)
37
Q

Fraud in the (1) and fraud in the (2) have similar fact patterns.

A
  1. execution

2. inducement

38
Q

relates to parties’ motivation for entering into the contract (e.g., buy a car thinking 50k miles–actually has 150k)

A

fraud in the inducement

39
Q

relates to deception in what document is actually being presented for approval

A

fraud in the execution

40
Q

(1), or nondisclosure, is difficult to prove as there is not always a (2).

A
  1. silence as fraud

2. duty to disclose

41
Q

knowledge of falsity; a “guilty mind”

A

scienter

42
Q

Mistake, if (1), can be rescinded by the offeror. The mistake must be (2), which is hard to prove. Relief can be granted if the mistake relates to the (3)–not to (4) or (5). A mistake in (6) is also not voidable.

A
  1. mutual
  2. material
  3. substance
  4. quality
  5. value
  6. judgment (believing something is going to gain value)
43
Q

A (1) mistake usually relates to an accounting error, and it is voidable.

A

unilateral

44
Q

consists of any wrongful act or threat which overcomes the free will of the other party. Not necessarily illegal – e.g., threatening a lawsuit

A

duress

45
Q

Duress uses a (1) standard–relates to what the person threatened feels

A

subjective

46
Q

4 ways to commit duress

A
  1. threat of violence
  2. threat of imprisonment
  3. wrongful taking/keeping of another’s property or threat to do so
  4. threat to breach a contract
47
Q

(1) is hard to prove–it is basically an abuse of trust

A

undue influence

48
Q

2 things that must be established for undue influence

A
  1. person unduly influenced had a relationship of dependence and trust and other party dominated them and made them believe they were acting on trust
  2. dominant party abused their position of trust and had a psychological advantage over the other person
49
Q

2 ways to end up with an unconscionable/adhesion contract

A
  1. large disparity in bargaining position of parties (one has little or no ability to negotiate)
  2. terms of contract are so unfair as to “shock the conscience”
50
Q

2 ways a contract can “shock the conscience”

A
  1. procedural - bargaining process is impaired e.g. language barrier, absolution of responsibility on back of parking pass
  2. substantive - terms are lopsided e.g., enormous interest rate

LAS204 - Contracts (28 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions