Term
Restatement says “Policy ordinarily requires that a person who has
conferred a benefit... by way of giving another services... should not
be permitted to require the other to pay therefor, unless the one
conferring the benefit had a valid reason for so doing. A person is not
required to deal with another unless he so desires and, ordinarily, a
person should not be required to become an obligor unless he so
desires. (Restatement.) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| It was a joke: Unexpressed subjective intent is irrelevant |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Discussion of a Contract implied in Fact |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Quasi Contract(Unjust enrichment) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Plaintiff wanted specific performance |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Express contract first case with one |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Objective test for manifestation of intent, instead of subjectively searching for a meeting of the minds |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Reasonable person test if manifestation of intent had been made |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Subjective intent is irrelevant unless it is known by the other party |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Voidable capacity not an option bc plaintiff comprehended what he was doing |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Least Cost Avoider: Put burden on the party that could have
avoider the confusion at the least cost. This is the party that is at a comparative advantage, or most idiosyncratic |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
THIS RELATES TO WHAT CASE?
R2d § 7 provides as follows: “A voidable contract is one where one or more parties
have the power, by a manifestation of election to do so, to avoid the legal relations
created by the contract, or by ratification of the contract to extinguish the power of
avoidance.”17 |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Which contracts will be inforced?
Indefiniteness
Consideration
Unconscionability |
|
Definition
Varney v. Ditmars
Corthell
Walker v.Keith
D.R. Curtis, Co. v. Mathews |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Bailey v. West
Lucy v. Zehmer
Leonard v. Pepsico |
|
|
Term
| Tries to buy a Jet with Pepsi points and 700k – costs 32 million |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Joke promises are not enforceable when the money asked for does not match the value of the item. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| vague terms can be filled in, but if they are too vague (leave too large a gap), the courts will not fill them |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| vague terms can be filled in, but if they are too vague (leave too large a gap), the courts will not fill them |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| vague terms can be filled in, but if they are too vague (leave too large a gap), the courts will not fill them |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| "Fair share" of the profits promised |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| fair share = illusory promise |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
The court said that a Quantum Meruit argument would of worked had the plaintiff delivered the work.
Quantum Meruit:
The argument (theory of recovery) one party makes the allegation that a contract has performed in reliance upon the terms thereof, vague, indefinite and uncertain though they are. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Contract says plaintiff will get a "reasonable price" for inventions, but that the price would be determined completely by defendant. |
|
Definition
| Corthell v. Summit Thread Company |
|
|
Term
| "reasonable recognition" = can be filled in by court |
|
Definition
| Corthell v. Summit Thread Company |
|
|
Term
| "If, however, we follow the urgings of the plaintiff in the instant matter, we will thereby establish a precedent which will open the door to repeated opportunities to do that which, in principle, courts should not do and, in any event, are not adequately equipped to do.’ |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| An agreement to agree is not enforceable |
|
Definition
| ○ If, however, we follow the urgings of the lessee in the instant matter, we will thereby establish a precedent which will open the door to repeated opportunities to do that which, in principle, courts should not do and, in any event, are not adequately equipped to do.’ |
|
|
Term
| A 10 year lease with the agreement to agree on a rent price when the lease ends |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Plaintiff and Defendant set a contract to agree to a price to be determined at a later date. Listed three specific factors which would determine the price. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
This is a UCC case.
UCC Article 2: §2-305 1b
It says that if you enter a contract to agree to agree, but fail to determine a price, it is sometimes possible for a court to impose a "standard" to determine a reasonable price. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The selling of wheat with the price left to be determined by three factors: protein content, protein basis and protein scale |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Hamer v. Sidway; St. Peter v. Pioneer Theater |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Refrain from drinking/smoking/gambling until he was 21 and get paid 5k |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Forebearance = Consideration
Under the old Benefit Detriment theory of consideration. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The exchange was bargained for when the uncle asked his nephew to refrain from drinking etc... and nephew agreed to it. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
The restatement says in SS71 (2):
To constitute consideration, a performance or a return promise must be bargained for (aka in exchange for a promise) □ e.g.: I promise to do x if you promise to do y
e.g.: I promise to do x if you perform y |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
The defendant argued that the plaintiff did not get a detriment, because drinking and smoking are: bad for health, costly, and evil.
Court disagreed. Court said plaintiff was giving up the exercise of a legal right. It reffered to Kent, who said drinking alchohol was a legal right and he wouldn't sign away by supporting prohibition. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Mentions that the Test for Consideration is met when: ( One or the other is met) THE BENEFIT DETRIMENT THEORY (this theory is gone)
Promisor gets a benefit
Or
Promisee gets a detriment |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
□ The bargained for test: (an Objective Test)
If the facts make it appear that the promisor must manifest an intention to induce the performance or return promise and be induced by it. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Remember that an intent to contract is met by having both of the following
1 Manifestation of Mutual Assent
and
2 Consideration |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Even though plaintiff was 16 at the time of making the contract, the contract was enforceable because the plaintiff did not void the contract. He affirmed the existence of the contract with a letter. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| There was a lottery and court discussed whether there was legal consideration by each party |
|
Definition
| St. Peter v. Pioneer Theater |
|
|
Term
The Pepper Corn theory
Helps determine how much of an exchange, act, or benefit or detriment is adequate for consideration.
It says that even a peppercorn is enough to satisfy consideration. |
|
Definition
| St. Peter v. Pioneer Theater |
|
|
Term
P is seeking to recover under “unilateral contract” (only one party makes a promise.)
--> If that promise is made contingent upon the other party doing
some act, which he is not under legal obligation to do, or forbearing an
action which he has a legal right to take, then such affirmative act or
forbearance constitutes the consideration for and acceptance of the
promise. |
|
Definition
| St. Peter v. Pioneer Theater |
|
|
Term
| Even though the plaintiff did not spend any money, plaintiff gave consideration by just showing up. It was the defendant's objective to have people show up as a means of promoting a business. |
|
Definition
| St. Peter v. Pioneer Theater |
|
|
