Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/43797591/Contracts-Attack-Sheet
Timestamp: 2017-07-24 05:18:39
Document Index: 234019205

Matched Legal Cases: ['§26', '§79', '§90', '§87', '§90', '§87', '§45', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§208', '§176', '§2', '§161', '§2', '§2', '§175', '§90', 'art 1', 'art[1']

Contracts Attack Sheet | Offer And Acceptance | Parol Evidence Rule
Contracts Attack SheetUploaded by caonimadechoubiRelated InterestsOffer And AcceptanceParol Evidence RuleEstoppelBreach Of ContractLegal EthicsRating and Stats5.0 (1)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentBARGAIN THEORY -- (need promise, benefit, consideration) 1. prelim negotiations: Invitation to make an offer Longernan v. Solenick 2. OFFER a.Offer good for reasonable time if not specific time noted b. Rstmt §26: standard is what the reasonable o’or would have understood to be an offer - is “I accept” is sufficient to conclude the deal c. target not specified: doesn’t mean it isn’t an offer d. statements of opinion are not offer e. needs to be clear and complete 3. ACCEPTANCE: meeting of the minds? 4. NOT ACCEPTANCE a. Lapse: Offeror always has right to set time limits: usually 7 days and time normally needed for letter to arrive - if not time set, it is end of reasonable time. b. Revocation: a. Mailbox Rule: Acceptance effect on dispatch, Revocation effect on receipt Henthorne v. Frasier b. Medium of Acceptance: i. offeror may impliedly accept other mediums than one which offer made ii. UCC: offeror invites acceptance by any reasonable means (p.58-9). Offeror must say if medium is not ok. c. When o’or acts in a way that is counter to or inconsistent to the continuation of the offer then it is revoked if o’ee has constructive of actual knowledge of revok. Normaile v. Miller c. Rejected/Counter offer. Normaile v. Miller 5. CONSIDERATION (BARGAIN THEORY?) a. Is it a Sealed Contract/Formal Contract? a. Seal (15 states). Extends statute of limitation b. Not for Sales of Goods b. Informal Contract: need consideration a. .Benefits/Detriments -Implied detriment could be met with benefit to the promisor -Not using legal right to do something is a detriment b. Restatement §79 blew away Hammer. If bargain there is no need for benefit and detriment, but there have been recent cases (p.101) where benefit-detriment used. c. Bargain Benefit must induce detriment which induces the benefit. Benefit and detriment are the same: quid pro quo. c. Must be mutual -- See DuPont v. Clairborn d. Must be simultaneous -- See Plowman 6. DAMAGES a. Expectation
Dany Dare
II. Probability of reliance is critical factor D. Grenier 3. Charities See Allegheny. Incomplete bargaining B. Implied from conduct and intent of parties C.
. it does induce action 4. Coretta Scott King 1. Commercial 1. c) d) IV. action 4. Prevent injustice C. Damages = Expectation and Quantum meruit Implied in law A. detrimental reliance (legal right) See Grenier v. Damages = Restitution (out of pocket) Moral Consideration A. Made up by court B. Promise 2. Reasonably foreseen reliance. Universal Computers 2.
III. promise 2.Restitution A. Doesn’t have to be legal entitlement See Katz v. consider this!! I. United Jewish Appeal. foreseeable that it induces action 3. Promise made after the act B. equitable estoppel in Ricketts) 1. Implied in fact A. Enforcement limited to as justice requires B. Prevent unjust enrichment C. Material benefit to promisor Promise is the consideration Damages = Expectation Promissory Estoppel -. §90!!!!! 1. Family (See also.ALTERNATIVE TO BARGAIN THEORY: If no consideration. injustice only avoided by enforcement of promise 5.
Kmoch 2. reward 1. Shoneys 1. Enforcement limited as justice so requires C. §87 a) reasonable reliance b) reasonable foreseeable c) Substantial character of reliance d) binding to extent to avoid injustice D. promise 2. injustice only avoided by enforcement 5. Offers are fully revocable before acceptance II. Pre-Acceptance Reliance §90 See Drennan 1. foreseeable that it induces action 3. Exceptions A. it must state irrevocability .at most it can be three months 5. Option Contracts §87 See. it induces action 4. Unilateral contracts lost dog. cannot revoke §45 B. If form provided by o’ee. One merchant 3. o’or signs twice (bottom and firm statement)
. Firm Offer§2-205 See Mid-South Packers v. Nominal Consideration Berryman v.REVOCATION OF OFFERS I. Red Owl 1. Hoffman v. Once performance begun. Sale of goods only 2. in writing 4.
alt and throw out (b) Say §2-207 doesn’t apply ∴offeror’s terms gover (c) Knock Out Rule (seller’s form was offer) See Diacom
. 3. Mirror Image Rule . (3) Indemnification clause: material alteration b/c not paying up for your faults See Dale Horning e) Different (non-material) Terms (1) 3 Ways to treat additional terms (1 + 2 most common) (a) Treat as additional. Almost like a first form rule 2. Common Law . choice of law or forum. find as mat. Performance/silence are not assent.favors the seller See Poel (rubber seller) 1. II. Look for Offer .Last shot rule a) Each new form is a counter offer b) Acceptance only if mirror image c) Taking of goods = acceptance of invoice terms B. UCC §2-207 . Terms are in unless a) one is not a merchant b) offer expressly limited the terms c) there has been a notification of objection d) material alteration (1) Measure by surprise and hardship (2) Material alterations: Warranty limitations. apply §2-207.Common law definition Find Acceptance A.BATTLE OF THE FORMS I. Hercules 1.favors the buyer/o’or See Brown v.
if writing not integrated 2. Parole evidence allowed to establish 1. argue ambiguous document B. Williston’s Rule a) Merger clause? (1) Yes. Can’t challenge or contradict written k B. Subject must be distinct V.Presume total integration. lack of consideration III. meaning of the writing (vagueness = partial integration 4. whether writing complete (collateral agreements) 3. if fully integrated disallows prior and contemporaneous oral but C. COMMON LAW: Restatement 214 A. Assumes partial integration B. allows contemporaneous written IV. UCC §2-202 A. but allow for intro of evidence of collateral agreements (b) No -. mistake. Contract must be A. Collateral Agreement Rule A. but other terms are excluded. illegality. duress.
.PAROL EVIDENCE RULE I. To get Parol evidence in: A. document is complete in what terms are included.Allow Parole evidence II. written B. does writing look complete on it’s face (4 corners rule)? (a) Yes -. Assumes partial integration B. invalidating causes a) fraud. then it’s complete (2) No. fully integrated 1.
. use of civil process w/bad faith 4. π not have opportunity to talk with counsel Misrepresentation See Syester v Banta A.DEFENSES Unconscionability gets you out bad clause Other defenses get you out of k I. Unfair Surprise C. §208 B. Jones B. psychological dominance 2. Will push courts to look beyond merger clause Unconscionability -. Improper threats (§176) 1. criminal prosecution 3.
V. Warrantiesare implied §2-314. Look for: See Odurizzi 1. §161 : affirmative duty to disclose See Hill v. use of power for illegitimate ends Undue Influence A.
III. can be done innocently. hearer suffers a loss Non-Disclosure A. breach of duty of good faith See Totem Marine v. negligently. believed by hearer D. §2-315 C. hearer acts E. Unfair terms and 1. confidential relationship B. Material FACT B. 2 types: 1. benefit to the accused 4. knowingly C.
IV.scalpel A. §2-203. crime or tort 2. Alyeska B. Material fact D. harms π w/o benefit to ∆ 2. suseptability 2. Causes (at least in part) π to act E. prior unfair dealings 3. Duress -. opportunity 3.§175 A. Oppression
Materiality . independant See Reading pipe case 2. III. if not.
BREACH. Wording off the k 3. Promise See Jones (no permit for landscaping) 5. Condition 1. breach is partial 1. willful/negligent behavior of breacher 6. how reasonable were the parties expectations 2. II. breach is total. To Get out of a Condition 1. Waiver See US Fidelity 3. hardship on breacher in terminating k 5. a little of both B. Spindler 6. Cts prefer to keep it alive B.CONDITIONS CHART What was promised? What was done? Condition or a promise? A. Look at the facts. JUSTICE AND EQUITY to determine if clauses are 1. dependent 3.6 months) 4. injured party’s compensation so far 3. Anticipatory Breach See Sackett v. Excuse 2.if material. Materiality 7. how far along in performance 4. Substantial Performance See Inman (claim. Forfeiture See JNA Realty (prevent eviction) Breach A. extent injured party will obtain material benefits 2.
IV. will breacher perform rest of k
. §90 .I. MORAL CONSIDERATION C. IV. CONTRACT IMPLIED IN LAW Quantum Meruit (Court will decide worth of k) A. IMPLIED IN FACT Reliance Damages (out of pocket and loss of opportunities) A.
DAMAGES Expectation Damages (pay as if k had taken place) A.
II. Can also request specific performance here! Restitution Damages (out of pocket) A. CONTRACT IMPLIED IN LAW B. III.PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL B. BARGAIN B.
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Contracts Attack SheetSkip carouselContracts - Attack outline ExcellentContracts Cheat SheetContracts OutlineCrunchtime+Contracts+ChecklistUCC 2 207 Flow ChartUCC Reference Chart 1Flowchart for Contract LawContracts II Fairfax Attack SheetContract Flowchart ColoredContracts Flow ChartsContracts Flowchart - ConsiderationContracts Attack OutlineUCC vs Common LawContracts ChecklistContracts Final Flow Chart[1]Contracts Attack PlanContracts ChecklistContracts Flow ChartContracts+Case+Brief+ChartProperty CardsContract Law FlowchartContracts II Attack OutlineCL UCC Comparison ChartTorts Attack OutlineContracts Attack OutlineUCCBlack Letter Law Grid - Contract Law Study Guide - Quick Reference Law School GuideContracts FLOW chartContracts FlowchartContracts ChecklistDocuments About Offer And AcceptanceSkip carousel501 - Contract to Purchase Real Estate (c) 2012 - ID-WATERMARKSurvival Kits RFPJoint Venture AgreementVoeller v. Neilston Warehouse Co., 311 U.S. 531 (1941)Kulmer & Schumacher v. STB, 236 F.3d 1255, 10th Cir. (2001)CREWRagab v. Howard, 10th Cir. (2016)Responsive Documents - CREWGarcia v. Irizarry, 33 F.3d 117, 1st Cir. (1994)32 Fair empl.prac.cas. 20, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,686 Association Against Discrimination in Employment, Inc. v. City of Bridgeport, and Bridgeport Firefighters for Merit Employment, Inc., Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants, 710 F.2d 69, 2d Cir. (1983)LRA Meeting Agenda 04-27-11T. C. V'soske, S. T. V'soske, K. A. V'soske, George A. Spater and V'soske Shops, Inc. v. E. T. Barwick and E. T. Barwick Mills, Inc., 404 F.2d 495, 2d Cir. (1969)Harold Wilson v. Donald P. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior, 758 F.2d 1369, 10th Cir. (1985)Jacqueline Galloway v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc, 4th Cir. (2016)nullSharp Electronics Corporation v. Deutsche Financial Services Corporation, 216 F.3d 388, 4th Cir. (2000)Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,656 Alan L. Spielman v. General Host Corporation, General Host Corporation, 538 F.2d 39, 2d Cir. (1976)Harris v. Scarcelli, 1st Cir. (2016)Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology and the Software Link, Inc, 939 F.2d 91, 3rd Cir. (1991)Shively v. Santa Fe Preparatory, 10th Cir. (2001)Grover T. Davis, Jr. v. Mrs. Hildegarde Mathews, Vernie Williams, Mrs. Opal Kiefer, Herbert Margon, Millard Wallace, John D. Warfield, William Markham, Mrs. Mary Kathleen McLntyre William A. Ballard, the Charleston National Bank, a National Banking Association, and Kanawha City Savings & Loan Company, a Corporation, Opal Kiefer and Millard Wallace v. Mrs. Hildegarde Mathews, Vernie Williams, Grover T. Davis, Jr., Herbert Margon, John D. Warfield, William Markham, Mrs. Mary Kathleen McIntyre William A. Ballard, the Charleston National Bank, a National Banking Association, and Kanawha City Savings & Loan Company, a Corporation, 361 F.2d 899, 4th Cir. (1966)Standard Bent Glass Corp. v. Glassrobots Oy, a Corporation Registered in Finland, 333 F.3d 440, 3rd Cir. (2003)Smith & Loveless, Incorporated v. Maitland Brothers Company, Smith 7 Loveless, Incorporated v. Maitland Brothers Company, 937 F.2d 603, 4th Cir. (1991)Responsive Document - CREW v. Dept. of Homeland SecurityPower Services Inc v. MCI Constructors Inc, 4th Cir. (2001)New data security RFP (Aug. 2013)Roto-Lith, Ltd. v. F. P. Bartlett & Co., Inc., 297 F.2d 497, 1st Cir. (1962)Irving P. Karlin v. Warren E. Avis and Avis Industrial Corporation, 457 F.2d 57, 2d Cir. (1972)William B. Pryor, on Behalf of Himself and a Class of Other Shareholders of Common Stock of Marathon Oil Company, Similarly Situated v. United States Steel Corp., Uss, Inc., and Bankers Trust Company, 794 F.2d 52, 2d Cir. (1986)Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Southern Insurance Company, Charles C. Lincoln, Jr., Clarence L. Saunders, an Infant, D. Burke Graybeal, Guardian Ad Litem for William Larry Saunders, an Infant, and Nationwide Insurance Company v. Travelers Insurance Company, 335 F.2d 573, 4th Cir. (1964)Documents About Parol Evidence RuleSkip carouselGem Corrugated Box Corporation v. National Kraft Container Corporation and St. Regis Paper Company, 427 F.2d 499, 2d Cir. (1970)Paramount Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Furniture & Carpetland, Inc., 857 F.2d 1469, 4th Cir. (1988)United States v. Rockwell Int'l, 10th Cir. (1997)Fr. Winkler Kg v. Gene Stoller v. Helmut Winkler, Martha Winkler Fuhst, Kurt Maier, Walter Schnee, and Franz Remensberger. Appeal of Gene Stoller, 839 F.2d 1002, 3rd Cir. (1988)MediaNews Group, Inc. v. McCarthey, 494 F.3d 1254, 10th Cir. (2007)West v. Smith, 101 U.S. 263 (1879)Laurence Gerard and Firejet America, Ltd. v. Albert Almouli and Alchem, Ltd., 746 F.2d 936, 2d Cir. (1984)Conneaut Development, Inc., Debtor and Debtor in Possession Richard S. Brown Wilma Brown Edward A. Kleese Flora Mae Kleese Robert S. Kleese Nicholas S. Perod Kleese Development Associates v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for the McKinley Bank David A. Tiihonen Peter T. Zeller v. Edward J. Kleese Joseph P. Kleese James M. Kleese, Third-Party, 74 F.3d 1240, 3rd Cir. (1996)Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Company v. Fairfax Equipment Company, Inc., a Corporation, 261 F.2d 207, 10th Cir. (1958)J. R. Fulton, D/B/A J. R. Fulton & Company v. L & N Consultants, Inc., 715 F.2d 1413, 10th Cir. (1983)National American In v. American RE, 358 F.3d 736, 10th Cir. (2004)Ricardo Garza v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc., and Third-Party v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation, Third-Party, 861 F.2d 23, 2d Cir. (1988)Terrance J. Velten v. Regis B. Lippert, Intercat, Inc., Intercat Pacific, Inc., Formerly Intercat, U.S.A., 985 F.2d 1515, 11th Cir. (1993)Burke v. Dulaney, 153 U.S. 228 (1894)Bast v. Bank, 101 U.S. 93 (1879)Charles L. Ricker v. B-W Acceptance Corporation, 349 F.2d 892, 10th Cir. (1965)Battery Steamship Corp. v. Refineria Panama, S. A. And United States of America, 513 F.2d 735, 2d Cir. (1975)Intercorp, Inc. v. Pennzoil Company, Pennzoil Products Company, a Division of Pennzoil Company, Intercorp, Inc. v. Pennzoil Company, 877 F.2d 1524, 11th Cir. (1989)Rock-Ola Manufacturing Corporation v. Dan M. Wertz, 282 F.2d 208, 4th Cir. (1960)Douglas E. Wall v. Csx Transportation, Inc. And Consolidated Rail Corporation, Docket No. 05-4065-Cv, 471 F.3d 410, 2d Cir. (2006)Essential Housing v. Landev Investments, 4th Cir. (1999)Patch v. White, 117 U.S. 210 (1886)Baldwin v. Bank of Newbury, 68 U.S. 234 (1864)Brown v. Wiley, 61 U.S. 442 (1858)Bradley v. Washington, Alexandria & Georgetown Steam-Packet Co., 38 U.S. 89 (1839)Flowers Ginning Company, Incorporated, D/B/A Warren Brothers Gin v. Arma, Incorporated Ritch McCutchen, 106 F.3d 390, 4th Cir. (1997)The United States of America v. The Clementon Sewerage Authority, and Third-Party v. Anne K. Wise, of the Estate of Albert G. Wise, Deceased, and John G. Reutter and John G. Reutter Associates, Jointly, Severally, or in the Alternative, Third-Party Anne K. Wise, of the Estate of Albert G. Wise, Deceased, 365 F.2d 609, 3rd Cir. (1966)Israel Casper, Individually and D/B/A Abby Sales v. Metal Trades, Inc., 604 F.2d 299, 4th Cir. (1979)Albany Savings Bank, Fsb v. Jack Halpin and Joanne C. Halpin, 117 F.3d 669, 2d Cir. (1997)Catalina Development v. Crowder, 10th Cir. (2003)