Source: http://slideplayer.com/slide/5156831/
Timestamp: 2019-11-19 14:00:49
Document Index: 541666751

Matched Legal Cases: ['§139', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 2', '§209', '§2', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 2']

American Contract Law in a Comparative Perspective Professor Nathan M. Crystal University of South Carolina School of Law. - ppt download
Presentation on theme: "American Contract Law in a Comparative Perspective Professor Nathan M. Crystal University of South Carolina School of Law."— Presentation transcript:
1 American Contract Law in a Comparative Perspective Professor Nathan M. Crystal University of South Carolina School of Law
2 Formalities I. The Statute of Frauds and II. The Parol Evidence Rule
3 Formalities in General What is a formality? –Specified procedure that must be followed to achieve a certain legal relationship –Examples: Family law--to achieve the status of marriage must go through ceremony before duly appointed state official. Old contract law—seal necessary to create contract.
4 Formalities in General (2) Rationales for formality, Lon L. Fuller, Consideration and Form, 41 Colum. L. Rev. 799 (1941) 3 functions:
5 Formalities in General (3) Evidentiary –Provides clear evidence that transaction occurred Cautionary –Warns participants to think before engaging in transaction Channeling –Assists judicial determination by providing test for whether relationship exists Marriage ceremony performs these functions well. Consideration as a formality in contract law poorly.
6 Statute of Frauds as a Legal Formality
7 Statute of Frauds—Brief History Recall from lecture 1 that doctrine of consideration developed in connection with Writ of Assumpsit By early 17 th Century became basic remedy for breach of promise
8 Brief History (2) Unlike its predecessors, Convenant and Debt, Assumpsit did not contain clear requirements for when promise was enforceable Led to possibility that person could come to court and allege that other person had made a promise
9 Brief History (3) Statute of Frauds passed in England 1677 1954 most provisions repealed Still major part of American law
10 Rationale and Problems Rationale---prevent fraudulent assertion of oral promise by requiring signed writing by promisor to make most important promises enforceable Problem--- –Can lead to injustice when parties make informal agreement not in writing Judicial attitude mixed –Numerous exceptions to statute created by courts when strict enforcement might be unfair
11 Contracts Covered Contract for sale of real estate –Leases lasting more that 6 months or a year must be in writing in most jurisdictions Contracts for sale of goods > $5000—UCC Contracts that cannot be performed within 1 year –E.g. 2 year employment contract –But contract for “lifetime” employment not covered
12 Contracts Covered (2) Contracts to answer for debt of another (“suretyship” contracts) Others depending on statute in jurisdiction
13 Sufficient Writing—General Law Writing (modern US law now uses term “record” to include electronic transactions) signed by “the party to be charged” (the party against whom enforcement is sought States with reasonable certainty the essential terms Sufficient to indicate that contract made between parties (or offer made by signer to other party)
14 Leading Case Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. (New York Court of Appeals 1953)
15 Facts September 1947 Crabtree entered into negotiations with Elizabeth Arden looking to possible employment as sales manager. Crabtree requested a three-year contract at a salary of $25,000 per year. Arden offered a two-year contract –$20,000 for first six months –$25,000 for next six months –$30,000 for second year –Plus $5,000 expenses for each year
16 Facts (2) Crabtree said found offer “interesting” Arden had her secretary made a memorandum of her offer on piece of paper that was handy The memorandum contained all the essential terms, but it was not signed by Ms. Arden.
17 Facts (3) A few days later Crabtree telephoned Ms. Arden’s general manager, Mr. Johns, and telegraphed Ms. Arden to accept her offer. Ms. Arden wired back her “welcome”. When he reported to work a few days later, Johns initialed a “pay-roll change card”.
18 Facts (4) Card stated salary and had initials of Mr. Johns, but it did not state the length of employment.
19 Facts (5) Crabtree received first salary increase, but not the second Arden refused to approve second increase, Crabtree left, and sued for breach of contract.
20 Analysis of Crabtree Contract was “within” statute of frauds, –i.e., required to be in writing because lasted more than one year. Court held that first memorandum was not a sufficient writing because not “signed” by Ms. Arden—the party to be charged. Pay-roll charge card was signed (initialed) by Ms. Arden’s agent, Mr. Johns, but it lacked one of the essential terms, period of employment.
21 Analysis of Crabtree (2) Court, however, held that the writing sufficient to comply with the statute of frauds could consist of several writings taken together, provided they relate to the same transaction. It was not necessary that all of the writings be signed. It was not necessary that all refer to each other.
22 Exceptions to Statute of Frauds 8 years after adoption of statute of frauds, English courts recognized “part performance” exception to statute of frauds. Typical situation: –Oral agreement to sell land. –Purchaser took possession and made valuable improvements. –Seller denied contract. Modern American courts have recognized a promissory estoppel exception to statute. Restatement (2d) Contracts §139.
23 UCC statute of frauds, §2-201(1) (1)A contract for the sale of goods for the price of $5,000 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some record sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against which enforcement is sought or by the party's authorized agent or broker. A record is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon, but the contract is not enforceable under this subsection beyond the quantity of goods shown in the record.
24 UCC §2-201(2) (2) Between merchants if within a reasonable time a record in confirmation of the contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the party receiving it has reason to know its contents, it satisfies the requirements of subsection (1) against the recipient unless notice of objection to its contents is given in a record within 10 days after it is received.
25 UCC §2-201(3) (3) A contract that does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable: (a) if the goods are to be specially manufactured for the buyer... (b) if the party against which enforcement is sought admits in the party's pleading, or in the party's testimony or otherwise under oath that a contract for sale was made, but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods admitted; or
26 UCC §2-201(3)(c), (4) (c) with respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted. (4) A contract that is enforceable under this section is not unenforceable merely because it is not capable of being performed within one year or any other period after its making.
27 Leading Case Buffaloe v. Hart (North Carolina Court of Appeals 1994)
28 Facts Buffaloe is a tobacco farmer who knew the Harts for about ten years and rented tobacco barns from them in 1988 and 1989. Buffaloe began negotiating with the Harts to buy 5 tobacco barns. Buffaloe claimed he and the Harts reached an oral agreement for him to purchase 5 barns for $20,000 payable without interest over 4 years.
29 Facts (2) On October 22 or 23, 1989 Buffaloe delivered a check to Ms. Hart for $5,000. The check stated that it was part payment for 5 barns. The next night Ms. Hart called Buffaloe to tell him she had sold the barns to the other purchasers. She tore up the check and sent it back to him the next day. The Harts denied that there was an agreement.
30 Decision The North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the Harts did not sign any writing. However, the court affirmed the jury determination that the “part payment” exception applied. UCC 2-201(3)(c).
31 Analysis of Buffaloe Application of one of several exceptions to UCC statute of frauds—part payment exception. No writing showing total purchase price. –Buffaloe allowed to submit oral testimony to establish the total price of the barns
32 International and European Law CISG, international equivalent of UCC, Arts. 11 and 12 UNIDROIT Principles 1.2 European Principles Art. 2:102(2)
33 CISG Art. 11 A contract of sale need not be concluded in or evidenced by writing and is not subject to any other requirement as to form. It may be proved by any means, including witnesses.
34 CISG Art. 12 Any provision of article 11, article 29 or Part II of this Convention that allows a contract of sale or its modification or termination by agreement or any offer, acceptance or other indication of intention to be made in any form other than in writing does not apply where any party has his place of business in a Contracting State which has made a declaration under article 96 of this Convention. The parties may not derogate from or vary the effect of this article.
35 UNIDROIT Principles 1.2 No form required Nothing in these Principles requires a contract, statement or any other act to be made in or evidenced by a particular form. It may be proved by any means, including witnesses.
36 European Principles Art. 2:102(2) A contract need not be concluded or evidenced in writing nor is it subject to any other requirement as to form. The contract may be proved by any means, including witnesses.
37 Comparison of US and International Law Statute of Frauds riddled with exceptions –Shows that rigid rule does not work well Courts and juries should be able to determine from facts whether contract really existed. –Judges can instruct jury that absence of writing is factor they can consider in determining whether contract existed.
38 II. Parol Evidence Rule
39 How the Rule Works Concept of a full integration –Writing that parties intent to be both a final and complete expression of their agreement Example: –Merger of two companies –Represented by counsel –Lengthy negotiations –Signed written agreement –Contains merger clause
40 How the Rule Works (2) Rule prohibits introduction of evidence that contradicts or supplements the written agreement. Rule permits introduction of evidence to explain the meaning of the agreement.
41 Exceptions to Parol Evidence Rule Subsequent agreements Agreement subject to oral condition to its effectiveness Evidence offered to show agreement invalid because of fraud, duress, etc. Right to equitable relief, such as reformation “Collateral” agreements
42 Leading Cases Mitchell v. Lath (New York 1928)
43 Facts Mitchell entered into a contract to buy Lath’s farm for $8400 to be used as a summer vacation home. The contract was reduced to writing and appeared to be complete. Mitchell asserted, however, that defendants had orally agreed to remove an unsightly ice house from adjoining property. Defendants refused, and Mitchell sued for specific performance.
44 Decision For defendants, holding oral agreement unenforceable under parol evidence rule. Agreement did not contradict the writing, but it added an obligation to the obligations imposed on the defendants by the writing. When a writing setting for a contract appears to be complete on its face, it may not be contradicted or supplemented by additional obligations that relate to same subject matter.
45 Current US law Both general contract law and the UCC continue to recognize the parol evidence Rule. –Restatement (2d) Contracts §209 and following –UCC §2-202 Both Restatement and UCC parol evidence rule subject to numerous exceptions
46 International and European Contract Law CISG, international equivalent of UCC. Arts. 8(3), 6, 11 UNIDROIT Principles Arts. 1.5, 2.1.17 European Principles Art. 2:105
47 CISG Art. 8(3) (3) In determining the intent of a party or the understanding a reasonable person would have had, due consideration is to be given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices which the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.
48 CISG Art. 11 A contract of sale need not be concluded in or evidenced by writing and is not subject to any other requirement as to form. It may be proved by any means, including witnesses.
49 CISG Arts. 6 Art. 6: The parties may exclude the application of this Convention or, subject to article 12, derogate from or vary the effect of any of its provisions. Under Art. 6 may parties create a parol evidence rule by contract?
50 UNIDROIT Principles 2.1.17 Merger clauses A contract in writing which contains a clause indicating that the writing completely embodies the terms on which the parties have agreed cannot be contradicted or supplemented by evidence of prior statements or agreements. However, such statements or agreements may be used to interpret the writing.
51 UNIDROIT Principles Art. 1.5 Exclusion or modification by the parties The parties may exclude the application of these Principles or derogate from or vary the effect of any of their provisions, except as otherwise provided in the Principles.
52 European Principles Art. 2:105(1) Merger Clause (1) If a written contract contains an individually negotiated clause stating that the writing embodies all the terms of the contract (a merger clause), any prior statements, undertakings or agreements which are not embodied in the writing do not form part of the contract.
53 European Principles Art. 2:105(2) (2) If the merger clause is not individually negotiated it will only establish a presumption that the parties intended that their prior statements, undertakings or agreements were not to form part of the contract. This rule may not be excluded or restricted.
54 European Principles Art. 2:105(3), (4) (3) The parties' prior statements may be used to interpret the contract. This rule may not be excluded or restricted except by an individually negotiated clause. (4) A party may by its statements or conduct be precluded from asserting a merger clause to the extent that the other party has reasonably relied on them.
55 Analysis of US and International Approaches US has parol evidence rule that applies to all transactions, both between merchants and between merchants and consumers, but riddled with many exceptions. International law would allow enforceable merger clause in commercial transactions— CISG and UNIDROIT Principles.
56 Analysis of US and International Approaches (2) European Contract Principles, which would not be limited to commercial contracts, would impose greater limitations on merger clause, depending on whether individually negotiated and on whether there has been reliance on statements. –Query: When is a clause individually negotiated?
Download ppt "American Contract Law in a Comparative Perspective Professor Nathan M. Crystal University of South Carolina School of Law."
Capacity to Contract Contracts – Prof Merges March 7, 2011.