Source: https://www.blenderlaw.com/contracts/contracts-past-years/contracts-archive-fall-2011/
Timestamp: 2017-11-21 23:13:27
Document Index: 635036633

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', '§ 559', '§ 559', '§ 2', '§2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', 'Art. 2']

WEEK 14: Nov. 14-18 On Tuesday we will finish discussing The Selmer Company v Blakeslee-Midwest. We finished on Friday by noticing the sentence at the top of page 544 which reads:
It is a detriment, not a benefit, to one’s long-run interests not to be able to make a binding commitment
Next we will consider Florida Statute s. 542.335 (valid restraints of trade or commerce) and compare the rules in this statute to the approach in Fullerton Lumber. Which is the better approach?
Please also read to page 582 for Tuesday. For Thursday please read pages 599-616 (omit note 1 on page 612). For Friday please read pages 629-659.
WEEK 13: November 7-11 Until the end of the semester we will be working on the social control of free contract materials. On Tuesday we will focus on pages 491-510 of the Casebook. For Thursday please read pages 491-541 and for Friday pages 541-565. For the future please note that we will be omitting pages 583-598.
Nov. 8: Please read this complaint In John Singleton v Paramount. I mentioned that I would find a complaint for you to read and this is an interesting one. It also helps to show how many different types of claim can be made based on one set of facts. Notice how the complaint begins with a claim of fraud and then moves on to claims to be able to rescind the contract and to damages for unjust enrichment. These are restitutionary claims and they come first in the complaint. Why do you think this is? The breach of contract claim, and the claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are included at the end.
Nov. 9: Some notes on Florida law relating to contracts and minors. Child labor is regulated under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state statutes (see, e.g., the Department of Labor’s page on Youth in the Workplace) such as Florida Statutes Ch. 450, Part 1).
On Tuesday we will begin by reviewing the Contracts Midterm (2011). I wrote a Memo on the Fall 2011 Contracts Midterm. If you did not take my midterm I recommend you look at the exam on its own before reading the memo. Or you could wait to look at the memo until after the class.
On Tuesday we will also finish up discussing McIntosh v Murphy. Note that in City of Orlando v West Orange Country Club (Fl. 5th DCA 2009) the West Orange Country Club tried to enforce rights to receive reclaimed water for no charge for 20 years. No contract was signed by the City:
In Florida the sale and lease of business opportunities are regulated by statute (the statute does not apply to franchises regulated under the FTC’s business opportunity rule.). The statute requires (§ 559.803) that the offeror of a business opportunity make disclosures to prospective purchasers which include the following language:
FL. Stats. § 559.811 provides:
Contracts to be in writing; form; provisions. –
WEEK 10: October 17-21
On Tuesday we will finish discussing Marvin v Marvin. We have fallen behind the syllabus slightly. For this week the syllabus states: CB pp 282-345; 365-376. Omit sections 7 and 8 at pages 345-365. I think this is overambitious so for Tuesday’s class please read to page 294, for Thursday to page 315 and for Friday to page 345. Note that we will omit pages 345-365.
October 7, 2011 : Here is my Contracts Midterm (2011).
I will update the blog with assignments for the week of October 17th at the end of next week. I hope you have a good fall break.
the link to the recording of the class on Thursday September 29
the link to the recording of the class on Friday September 30
WEEK 8: October 3-7: On Tuesday we will finish discussing the review problems. Please also read to page 246. For Thursday please read to page 281 (we may begin discussing Marvin v Marvin on Thursday, but we likely won’t finish discussing it then – nevertheless I would like you to read the notes after the case before we begin to discuss it).
That Pepsi commercial can be accessed here (you will find it useful to read this entire post).
WEEK 7: September 26-30
Next week we will be finishing up the remedies material, starting with the next 2 cases on Tuesday and moving on to the review problems. Please be sure to look at problems 1-3 for Tuesday in case we get to them then.
WEEK 6: September 19-23
On Tuesday we will finish our discussion of Albert v Armstrong Rubber, consider the question on pages 155-6, then move on to Colonial Dodge v Miller, so please read to page 174. For Thursday please read to page 195 and for Friday to page 210.
September 21: Contracts news: Sony Adds Class Action Waiver to PlayStation User Agreement
When subscribers attempt to log into the network with their PlayStation consoles, they will be prompted to agree to the revised terms via clickwrap. If subscribers do not agree, they are denied access to the network. However, according to the New York Times and BBC, subscribers may “opt out” of the class action waiver by sending a written letter to Sony headquarters in the next 30 days requesting not to be included in the agreement.
WEEK 5: September 12-16
According to the syllabus, this week we should cover pp 119-161 of the Casebook. For Tuesday please read to page 136: we will begin on Tuesday with finishing up Hadley v Baxendale, then move on to considering the need to prove damages with reasonable certainty. For Thursday please read to page 148, and for Friday to page 161.
In class I said that franchise agreements often contain liquidated damages provisions. Here is a liquidated damages provision from a Showbiz Pizza Time Inc. Franchise Agreement:
WEEK 4: September 6-9
On Tuesday we will finish up discussing the Worldcom case. The outline syllabus says that next week we should cover pages 89-107 and 113-119 of the Casebook, and omit notes 4-7 on pages 107-112. So please read pages 89-100 for Tuesday, 100-107 for Thursday and 113-119 for Friday. We will speed up a bit later.
September 7: The conventional view that specific performance is a common remedy in civil law jurisdictions may not be completely accurate. One study found that specific performance was rare in Denmark, Germany and France and in contracts to which the CISG applies. The authors applied the term specific performance to cases where the sanction for non-performance was greater than the amount of damages for the cost of non-performance. For example, in Denmark, where a judge orders specific performance by one party who does not comply with the order, the other party has the right to bring a private criminal suit. In practice such suits do not happen. In the one recent case the authors found the plaintiff lost. They wrote:
WEEK 3: August 29-September 1
For this week the outline syllabus asks you to read to page 89 of the Casebook. On Tuesday we will discuss Parker v Twentieth Century Fox (please be sure to read the notes after the case carefully). On Thursday we will discuss Neri, and on Friday the Worldcom decision.
Note: The last hypothetical we looked at on Friday involved a resale arguably not in compliance with § 2-706, and the question was whether the seller should be able to recover damages based on market price, which would allow for higher recovery than if the seller’s damages would be fixed by reference to the resale price. In Coast Trading Company v Cudahy Company (9th Cir. 1979) the Court said:
In thinking about UCC §2-706 we saw that the seller is subject to the requirement to “give the buyer reasonable notification” of his intention to resell via a private sale (§ 2-706(3)) and with respect to a public resale there is an obligation to “give reasonable notice of the time and place” (§ 2-706(4)(b)). Please read UCC § 1-202 which deals with notice and knowledge, especially § 1-202(d): a person gives a notification “by taking such steps as may be reasonably required to inform the other person in ordinary course, whether or not the other person comes to know of it” and (e): a person receives a notice or notification when it comes to their attention or “it is duly delivered in a form reasonable under the circumstances at the place of business through which the contract was made or at another location held out by that person as the place for receipt of such communications”.
August 31, 2011: A question arose about the way in which judges are chosen in California. Here is a link to the American Judicature Society’s California page.
WEEK 2, August 22-26:
I have transferred the material which previously appeared on this page to the Fall 2011 archive page.
On Tuesday 23 August we will finish our discussion of the first 29 pages of the Casebook. Here are the questions I suggested to organize our discussion:
1. Why do you think the authors of the case book began the book this way?
2. Did you find anything surprising in this section of the book?
3. How does what you have been doing in class (in all your courses) this week fit with this section of the book (or not)?
4. Do the first 29 pages of the casebook explain why we began the course by reading some agreements (for example, rather than by reading a case)?
Then please read pages 31-64 of the Casebook. On Tuesday we will focus on the problems on pages 46-48. For Thursday please be prepared to discuss the problems on page 50 and to begin discussion of Parker v Twentieth Century Fox.
Note. You can find the Florida version of the UCC online:
Scope of UCC Art. 2
3. Read the facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (2011)
For August 18:
Update August 16, 2011: On Thursday we will continue to examine the Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement and then move on to the Sample Patient Contract for Using Opioid Pain Medication in Chronic Pain; the facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (2011) and the Learning Contract Maker.
With respect to this last agreement consider whether the learning contract this program would generate is the same sort of contract as the ones you read before? How is it similar or different? Do you think it would be a good idea to adopt learning contracts for this class?
In looking at the agreements we will consider what they provide with respect to the rights and obligations of the parties, and what effects the agreements are designed to produce. Is what is most important the question of what the legal rights and obligations of the parties are or are the agreements designed to affect behavior apart from enforcement by the courts?
We will also consider issues of ambiguity and drafting.
In Woebse v Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America in 2008 the 2nd. District Court of Appeal (DCA) of Florida invalidated an arbitration agreement because it was both procedurally and substantively unfair:
Ms. Wright has demonstrated that there was procedural unconscionability in relation to the signing of the arbitration agreement. During the five-minute meeting which took place between Ms. Wright and Ms. Tomei, there was no attempt to inform Ms. Wright of the existence of the arbitration agreement, much less to explain the document to her and the rights she would be waiving on behalf of her father.
In Bland this court reviewed the identical arbitration agreement as is involved in the present case. However, in that case the arbitration agreement was “worded clearly, conspicuously and separate from other [admissions] documents. … In the present case, the arbitration agreement was included as pages thirty-three through thirty-seven of the thirty-seven page sequentially numbered document. Ms. Wright was not given the opportunity to read the thirty-seven page document prior to signing but was merely directed where to sign. Additionally, because Ms. Wright was never provided with a copy of the agreement, she did not have a chance to review the agreement at any time after this five-minute encounter.
With regard to another determinative factor-equal bargaining power-it did not exist. Ms. Wright was never informed that she was not required to sign the arbitration agreement in order for her extremely ill, incapacitated father to be allowed to remain at the facility. In her deposition Ms. Wright testified that she was told by Ms. Tomei that “they were admission papers that were required to be signed for [her father’s] continued stay….
…chapter 400 was designed to protect the rights of nursing home residents and .. the law provides an award of punitive damages for gross or flagrant conduct or conscious indifference to these rights. We … hold that this arbitration agreement would not vindicate a nursing home resident’s statutory rights in any manner because it specifically deprives the resident of those rights. In the present case, the trial court erred when it applied the law to the facts and determined that the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable.
Please read this document clearly?:
2. Read pages 1-29 of the Case Book.
By close of business (for the avoidance of doubt, this is 5.00pm eastern time) on Friday August 19 please send an email (subject line: Bradley Contracts Class) to my assistant, Sandra Hernandez (shernandez1@law.miami.edu) with two facts you would like me to know about you.
For class on Friday August 19th please consider the following questions: