Source: https://www.flashcardmachine.com/contracts-ii2.html
Timestamp: 2019-11-18 04:14:09
Document Index: 378711306

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', '§ 296', '§ 124', '§ 2', 'art.\n2', '§ 84', '§ 225', '§ 227', '§ 229', '§ 237', '§ 241', '§ 179', '§ 186', '§ 189', '§ 192', '§ 230', '§ 231', '§ 232', '§ 233', '§ 234', '§ 2', '§ 373', '§ 374', '§ 356', '§ 356', '§ 261', '§ 262', '§ 266', '§ 263', '§ 264', '§ 265', '§ 271', '§ 272', '§ 240', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 250', '§ 243', '§ 251', '§ 243', '§ 252', '§ 251', '§ 253', '§ 254', '§ 255', '§ 256', '§ 250', '§ 251', '§ 250', '§ 251', '§ 235', '§ 236', '§ 237', '§ 238', '§ 239', '§ 237', '§ 241', '§ 242', '§ 237', '§ 241', '§ 243', '§ 240', '§ 244', '§ 245', '§ 344', '§ 345', '§ 344', '§ 346', '§ 347', '§ 350', '§ 370', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 376', '§ 377', '§ 371', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 348', '§ 347', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 350', '§ 351', '§ 352', '§ 353', '§ 355', '§ 2', '§ 358', '§ 359', '§ 360', '§ 363', '§ 362', '§ 366']

Contracts II Flashcards
restatements and ucc codes (part 2)
Restatement 12 - Capacity to Contract (Parties and Capacity)
(Bowling v. Sperry)
(2) A natural person who manifests assent to a transaction has full legal capacity to incur contractual duties thereby unless he is:
(d) intoxicated
Restatement 13 - Persons affected by Guardianship (Parties and capacity)
A person has no capacity to incur contractual duties if his property is under guardianship by reason of an adjudication of mental illness or defect.
Restatement 14 - Infants (Parties and Capacity)
Unless a statute provides otherwise, a natural person has the capacity to incur only voidable contractual duties until the beginning of the day before the person's 18th birthday.
Restatement 15 - Mental illness or Defect (parties and capacity)
(Heights v. Phillips, Citi Financial v.Brown)
(2) Where the contract is made on fair terms and the other party is without knowledge of the mental illness or defect, the power of avoidance under subsection (1) terminates to the extent that the contract has been so performed in whole or in part or the circumstances have so changed that avoidance would be unjust. In such a case a court may grant relief on such equitable terms as justice requires.
Restatement 16 - Intoxicated persons (Parties and capacity)
(Ervin v. Hosana)
(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction
Restatement 151 - Mistake Defined (Mistake)
(beachcomber)
Restatement 502 -
(Beach v. Boskett)
(Lenawee v. Messerly)
Restatement 155 - When Mistake of Both Parties as to Written Expression Justifies Reformation
(Onebeacon v. Tevelers)
restatement 157 - Effect of fault of party seeking relief (Mistake)
Restatement 159 - Misrepresentation Defined (Misrepresentation)
Restatement 160 - When Action is Equivalent to an Assertion (concealment)
(arthur murray?)
Action intended or known to be likely to prevent another from learning a fact is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist.
Restatement 161 - When Non-Disclosure is Equivalent to an Assertion
(Laidlaw, Hill v. Jones)
(b) where he knows that disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the party as to a basic assumption on which that party is making the contract and if non-disclosure of the facts amounts to a failure to act in good faith and in accordance with the reasonable standards of fair dealing
Restatement § 296. Survivorship Of Joint Duties
On the death of one of two or more promisors of the same performance in a contract, the estate of the deceased promisor is bound by the contract, whether the duty was joint, several, or joint and several.
Restatement § 124. Contract Made Upon Consideration Of Marriage
UCC 2-615 - Excuse by failure of presupposed conditions
(wegematic - not excused, Canadian v. Dunbar, Dills v. Ensfield)
Restatement 162 - When a Misrepresentation is Fraudulent or Material (Misrepresentation)
(1) A misrepresentation is fraudulent if the maker intends his assertion to induce a party to manifest his assent and the maker
(a) knows or believes that the assertion is not in accord with the facts, OR
(b) does not have the confidence that he states or implies in the truth of the assertion, OR
(c) knows that he does not have the basis that he states or implies for the assertion.
(2) A misrepresentation is material if it would be likely to induce a reasonable person to manifest his assent, or if the make knows that it would be likely to induce the recipient to do so.
Restatement 163 - When a misrepresentation Prevents Formation of a Contract (misrepresentation)
Restatement 164 - When a misrepresentation makes a contract voidable (misrep)
(Hill v. Jones)
(1) If a party's manifestation of assent is unduced by either a fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by the other party upon which the recipient is justified in relying, the contract is voidable by the recipient.
(2) If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by either a fraudulent or material misrepresentation by one who is not a party to the transaction upon which the recipient is justified in relying, the contract is voidable by the recipient, unless the other party to the transaction in good faith and without reason to know of the misrepresentation either gives value or relies materially on the transaction.
Restatement 165 - Cure by Change of Circumstances
If a contract is voidable because of a misrepresentation and, before notice of an intention to avoid the contract, the facts come into accord with the assertion, the contract is not longer voidable unless the recipient has been harmed by relying on the misrepresentation.
Restatement 166 - When a misrepresentation as to a writing justifies reformation (misrep)
If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by the other party's fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents or effect of a writing evidencing or embodying in whole or inpart an agreement, the court at the request of the recipient may reform the writing to express the terms of the agreement as asserted,
(a) if the recipient was justified in relying on the misrepresentation, and
(b) except to the extent that rights of third parties such as good faith purchasers for value will be unfairly affected.
Restatement 167 - When a misrepresentation is an Inducing Cause (misrep)
A misrepresentation induces a party's manifestation of assent if it substantially contributes to his decision to manifest his assent.
Restatement 168 - Reliance on Assertions of Opinion (Misrep)
(Arthur Murray)
(1) An assertion is one of opinion if it expresses only a belief, without certainty as to the existence of a fact or expresses only a judgment as to quality, value, authenticity, or similar matters.
Restatement 169 - When reliance on an Assertion of Opinion is not Justified (misrep)
(b) reasonably believes that, as compared with himself, the person whose opinion is asserted has special skill, judgement or objectivity with respect to the subject matter, OR
(c) is for some other special reason particularly susceptible to a misrepresentation of the type involved.
Restatement 170 - Reliance on Assertions as to Matters of Law (misrep)
If an assertion is one as to a matter of law, the same rules that apply in the case of other assertions determine whether the recipient is justified in relying on it.
Restatement 171 - When reliance on an assertion of intention is not justified (misrep)
(1) To the extent that an assertion is one of intention only, the recipient is not justified in relying on it if in the circumstances a misrepresentation of intention is consistent with reasonable standards of dealing.
(2) If it is reasonable to do so, the promisee may properly interpret a promise as an assertion that the promisor intends to perform the promise.
Restatement 172 - When Fault Makes Reliance Unjustified (Misrep)
Restatement 173 - when abuse of a fiduciary relation makes a contract voidable (misrep)
If a fiduciary makes a contract with his beneficiary relating to matters within the scope of the fiduciary relation, the contract is voidable by the beneficiary, unless
(a) it is on fair terms, and
(b) all parties beneficially interested manifest assent with full understanding of their legal rights and of all relevant facts that the fiduciary knows or should know.
UCC 2-313 - Express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, sample
(Henningsen v. Bloomfield)
(a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain created an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.
(b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain created an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description
(c) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates and express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model.
UCC 2-711 - Buyer's Remedies in General; Buyer's Security interest in rejecting goods.
(American Standard)
(a) "cover" and have damages under the next section as to all the goods affected whether or not they have been identified to thecontract; or
Restatement 174 - When Duress by Physical Compulsion Prevents Formation of a contract (unenforceability on grounds)
If conduct that appears to be a manifestation of assent by a party who does not intend to engage in that conduct is physically compelled by duress, the conduct is not effective as a manifestation of assent.
Restatement 175 - when duress by threat makes a contract voidable
(duress by physical compulsion prevents formation of a contract, (174), whereas duress by threats makes a contract voidable (175).
Restatement 176 - When a threat is improper (Unenforceability on Grounds)
(c) what is threatened is the use of civil process and the threat is made in bad faith, or
(d) the threat is a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing under a contract with the recipient.
(2) A threat is improper if the resulting exchange is not on fair terms, and
(a) the threatened act would harm the recipient and would not significantly benefit the party making the threat,
(b) the effectiveness of the threat in inducing the manifestation of assent is significantly increased by prior unfair dealing by the party making the threat, OR
(c) what is threatened is otherwise a use of power for illegitimate ends
UCC 2-209 - Modification, Rescission and Waiver.
(Good faith, so no duress)
(Roth Steel v. Sharon Steel)(pg763 fist inquiry/2nd inquiry)
(Clark v. West, Dynamic v. Machine)
UCC § 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Clause.
(Williams v. Walker Thomas, Jones v. Star Credit, In Re Fleet, Ferguson v. Countrywide, Zapatha v. Dairy Mart)
Restatement 208 - Unconscionability
(Zapatha v. Dairy Mart, Coursey v. Caterpillar)
UCC 2-302 -
Restatement 211 - Standardized Agreements
(1) Except as stated in Subsection (3), where a party to an agreement signs or otherwise manifests assent to a writing and has reason to believe that like writings are regularly used to embody terms of agreements of the same type, he adopts the writing as an integrated agreement with respect to the terms included in the writing.
restatement 197 - Restitution Generally Unavailable
(Sinnar v. Le Roy, Homami v. Iranzadi)
Restatement 198 - Restitution In Favor Of Party Who Is Excusably Ignorant Or Is Not Equally In The Wrong
(a) he was excusably ignorant of the facts or of legislation of a minor character, in the absence of which the promise would be enforceable, or
Restatement 199 - Restitution Where Party Withdraws Or Situation Is Contrary To Public Interest
Restatement 178 - When A Term Is Unenforceable On Grounds Of Public Policy
Restatement 180 - Effect Of Excusable Ignorance
If a promisee is excusably ignorant of facts or of legislation of a minor character, of which the promisor is not excusably ignorant and in the absence of which the promise would be enforceable, the promisee has a claim for damages for its breach but cannot recover damages for anything that he has done after he learns of the facts or legislation.
Restatement 166 - When A Misrepresentation As To A Writing Justifies Reformation
If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by the other party's fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents or effect of a writing evidencing or embodying in whole or in part an agreement, the court at the request of the recipient may reform the writing to express the terms of the agreement as asserted,
Restatement 184 - When Rest Of Agreement Is Enforceable
(2) A court may treat only part of a term an unenforceable under the rule stated in Subsection (1) if the party who seeks to enforce the term obtained it in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standards of fair dealing.
Restatement 195(3) - Term Exempting From Liability For Harm Caused Intentionally, Recklessly Or Negligently
(b) the term exempts one charged with a duty of public service from liability to one to whom that duty is owed for compensation for breach of that duty, or
(c) the other party is similarly a member of a class protected against the class to which the first party belongs.
UCC 2-316 -
UCC 2-205 -
UCC 1-201 (3) - Agreement
"Agreement" means the bargain of the parties in fact as found in their language or by implication from other circumstances including course of dealing or usage of trade or course of performance as provided in this Act (Sections 1-205 and 1-206). Whether an agreement has legal consequences is determined by the provisions of this Act, if applicable; otherwise by the law of contracts (Section1-103). (Compare "Contract".)
UCC 2-202 -
(Suburban v. AMF)
(b) by evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement .
Restatement 200 - Interpretation Of Promise Or Agreement
(Mitchel v. Lath, Masterson v. Sine [not 2 pg 664 says to compare these cases to RSTMT 209-218])
Interpretation of a promise or agreement or a term thereof is the ascertainment of its meaning.
Restatement 201 - Whose Meaning Prevails
(Frigaliment) (see pg 695+ for interpretations)
(3) Except as stated in this Section, neither party is bound by the meaning attached by the other, even though the result may be a failure of mutual assent.
Restatement 202 - Rules In Aid Of Interpretation
Restatement 203 - Standards Of Preference In Interpretation
In the interpretation of a promise or agreement or a term thereof, the following standards of preference are generally applicable:
(a) an interpretation which gives a reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all the terms is preferred to an interpretation which leaves a part unreasonable, unlawful, or of no effect;
(b) express terms are given greater weight than course of performance, course of dealing, and usage of trade, course of performance is given greater weight than course of dealing or usage of trade, and course of dealing is given greater weight than usage of trade;
(c) specific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language;
(d) separately negotiated or added terms are given greater weight than standardized terms or other terms not separately negotiated.
Restatement 205 - Duty Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing
Restatement 206 - Interpretation Against The Draftsman
Restatement 207 - Interpretation Favoring The Public
In choosing among the reasonable meanings of a promise or agreement or a term thereof, a meaning that serves the public interest is generally preferred.
Restatement 208 - Unconscionable Contract Or Term
Restatement 209 - Integrated Agreements
(Alaska v. Alyeska)
(1) An integrated agreement is a writing or writings constituting a final expression of one or more terms of an agreement.
(2) Whether there is an integrated agreement is to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol evidence rule.
(3) Where the parties reduce an agreement to a writing which in view of its completeness and specificity reasonably appears to be a complete agreement, it is taken to be an integrated agreement unless it is established by other evidence that the writing did not constitute a final expression.
Restatement 210 - Completely And Partially Integrated Agreements
(1) A completely integrated agreement is an integrated agreement adopted by the parties as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.
(2) A partially integrated agreement is an integrated agreement other than a completely integrated agreement.
(3) Whether an agreement is completely or partially integrated is to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol evidence rule.
Restatement 212 - Interpretation Of Integrated Agreement
(Pacific Gas v. GW Thomas, Confold v. Polaris)
see not 1 pg 685
(1) The interpretation of an integrated agreement is directed to the meaning of the terms of the writing or writings in the light of the circumstances, in accordance with the rules stated in this Chapter.
(2) A question of interpretation of an integrated agreement is to be determined by the trier of fact if it depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence. Otherwise a question of interpretation of an integrated agreement is to be determined as a question of law.
Restatement 213 - Effect Of Integrated Agreement On Prior Agreements (Parol Evidence Rule)
(1) A binding integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that it is inconsistent with them.
(2) A binding completely integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that they are within its scope.
(3) An integrated agreement that is not binding or that is voidable and avoided does not discharge a prior agreement. But an integrated agreement, even though not binding, may be effective to render inoperative a term which would have been part of the agreement if it had not been integrated.
Restatement 214 - Evidence Of Prior Or Contemporaneous Agreements And Negotiations
(e) ground for granting or denying rescission, reformation, specific performance, or other remedy.
Restatement 215 - Contradiction Of Integrated Terms
Except as stated in the preceding Section, where there is a binding agreement, either completely or partially integrated, evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements or negotiations is not admissible in evidence to contradict a term of the writing.
Restatement 216 - Consistent Additional Terms
(1) Evidence of a consistent additional term is admissible to supplement an integrated agreement unless the court finds that the agreement was completely integrated.
(2) An agreement is not completely integrated if the writing omits a consistent additional agreed term which is
Restatement 228 - Satisfaction Of The Obligor As A Condition
When it is a condition of an obligor's duty that he be satisfied with respect to the obligee's performance or with respect to something else, and it is practicable to determine whether a reasonable person in the position of the obligor would be satisfied, an interpretation is preferred under which the condition occurs if such a reasonable person in the position of the obligor would be satisfied.
UCC 2-615 - Excuse by Failure of Presupposed Conditions.
(Zapatha)
UCC 2-312 - Warranty of Title and Against Infringement; Buyer's Obligation Against Infringement.
2-313 - Express Warranties by Affirmation, Promise, Description, Sample.
2-314 - Implied Warranty: Merchantability; Usage of Trade.
(1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contractfor their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale.
2-315 - Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose.
UCC 2-306 - Output, Requirements and Exclusive Dealings.
Restatement 89 - Modification Of Executory Contract
UCC 2-608 - Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part.
2-719(2) - Contractual Modification or Limitation of Remedy.
Restatement 224 - Condition Defined
(passage of time is not considered a condition)
Restatement § 84. Promise To Perform A Duty In Spite Of Non–Occurrence Of A Condition
(1) Except as stated in Subsection (2), a promise to perform all or part of a conditional duty under an antecedent contract in spite of the non-occurrence of the condition is binding, whether the promise is made before or after the time for the condition to occur, unless
(a) occurrence of the condition was a material part of the agreed exchange for the performance of the duty and the promisee was under no duty that it occur; or
(b) uncertainty of the occurrence of the condition was an element of the risk assumed by the promisor.
(2) If such a promise is made before the time for the occurrence of the condition has expired and the condition is within the control of the promisee or a beneficiary, the promisor can make his duty again subject to the condition by notifying the promisee or beneficiary of his intention to do so if
(a) the notification is received while there is still a reasonable time to cause the condition to occur under the antecedent terms or an extension given by the promisor; and
(b) reinstatement of the requirement of the condition is not unjust because of a material change of position by the promisee or beneficiary; and
(c) the promise is not binding apart from the rule stated in Subsection (1).
Restatement § 225. Effects Of The Non-Occurrence Of A Condition (scope)
(1) Performance of a duty subject to a condition cannot become due unless the condition occurs or its non-occurrence is excused.
(2) Unless it has been excused, the non-occurrence of a condition discharges the duty when the condition can no longer occur.
(3) Non-occurrence of a condition is not a breach by a party unless he is under a duty that the condition occur.
Restatement § 227. Standards Of Preference With Regard To Conditions (Scope)
(1) In resolving doubts as to whether an event is made a condition of an obligor's duty, and as to the nature of such an event, an interpretation is preferred that will reduce the obligee's risk of forfeiture, unless the event is within the obligee's control or the circumstances indicate that he has assumed the risk.
(2) Unless the contract is of a type under which only one party generally undertakes duties, when it is doubtful whether
(a) a duty is imposed on an obligee that an event occur, or
(b) the event is made a condition of the obligor's duty, or
(c) the event is made a condition of the obligor's duty and a duty is imposed on the obligee that the event occur,
the first interpretation is preferred if the event is within the obligee's control.
(3) In case of doubt, an interpretation under which an event is a condition of an obligor's duty is preferred over an interpretation under which the non-occurrence of the event is a ground for discharge of that duty after it has become a duty to perform.
Restatement § 229. Excuse Of A Condition To Avoid Forfeiture (condition)
Restatement § 237. Effect On Other Party's Duties Of A Failure To Render Performance
(effect of performance and non performance)
Restatement § 241. Circumstances Significant In Determining Whether A Failure Is Material
§ 179. Bases Of Public Policies Against Enforcement
A public policy against the enforcement of promises or other terms may be derived by the court from
(b) the need to protect some aspect of the public welfare, as is the case for the judicial policies against, for example,
(i) restraint of trade (§§ 186-188),
(ii) impairment of family relations (§§ 189-191), and
(iii) interference with other protected interests (§§ 192-196, 356).
Restatement § 230. Event That Terminates A Duty
(conditions and similar events)
(1) Except as stated in Subsection (2), if under the terms of the contract the occurrence of an event is to terminate an obligor's duty of immediate performance or one to pay damages for breach, that duty is discharged if the event occurs.
(2) The obligor's duty is not discharged if occurrence of the event
(a) is the result of a breach by the obligor of his duty of good faith and fair dealing, or
(b) could not have been prevented because of impracticability and continuance of the duty does not subject the obligor to a materially increased burden.
(3) The obligor's duty is not discharged if, before the event occurs, the obligor promises to perform the duty even if the event occurs and does not revoke his promise before the obligee materially changes his position in reliance on it.
Restatement § 231. Criterion For Determining When Performances Are To Be Exchanged Under An Exchange Of Promise (Performances to be exchanged under an exchange of promises)
§ 232. When It Is Presumed That Performances Are To Be Exchanged Under An Exchange Of Promises
Restatement § 233. Performance At One Time Or In Installments
(Performances To Be Exchanged Under An Exchange Of Promises)
(1) Where performances are to be exchanged under an exchange of promises, and the whole of one party's performance can be rendered at one time, it is due at one time, unless the language or the circumstances indicate the contrary.
(2) Where only a part of one party's performance is due at one time under Subsection (1), if the other party's performance can be so apportioned that there is a comparable part that can also be rendered at that time, it is due at that time, unless the language or the circumstances indicate the contrary.
Restatement § 234. Order Of Performances
( Performances To Be Exchanged Under An Exchange Of Promises)
(Palmer v. Fox, Jacob & Young v. Kent, OW Grun)
UCC § 2-613. Casualty to Identified Goods.
(taylor v. Caldwell)
Doesn't say - I'm a seller with lots of widgets and some of widgets are destroyed, it does not say that I am relieved from selling it to you (even if all of the inventory destroyed)
This provision is about the situation where a party agrees to buy a "specific widget" (identified by contract) then it is lost or destroyed before the risk or loss is passed to the buyer:
(b) if the loss is partial or the goods have so deteriorated as no longer to conform to the contract thebuyer may nevertheless demand inspection and at his option either treat the contract as avoided or accept the goods with due allowance from the contract price for the deterioration or the deficiency in quantity but without further right against the seller.
Restatement § 373. Restitution When Other Party Is In Breach
(1) Subject to the rule stated in Subsection (2), on a breach by non-performance that gives rise to a claim for damages for total breach or on a repudiation, the injured party is entitled to restitution for any benefit that he has conferred on the other party by way of part performance or reliance.
(2) The injured party has no right to restitution if he has performed all of his duties under the contract and no performance by the other party remains due other than payment of a definite sum of money for that performance.
Restatement § 374. Restitution In Favor Of Party In Breach
(1) Subject to the rule stated in Subsection (2), if a party justifiably refuses to perform on the ground that his remaining duties of performance have been discharged by the other party's breach, the party in breach is entitled to restitution for any benefit that he has conferred by way of part performance or reliance in excess of the loss that he has caused by his own breach.
(2) To the extent that, under the manifested assent of the parties, a party's performance is to be retained in the case of breach, that party is not entitled to restitution if the value of the performance as liquidated damages is reasonable in the light of the anticipated or actual loss caused by the breach and the difficulties of proof of loss.
c. Exception for money paid. Instead of promising to pay a fixed sum as liquidated damages in case of breach, a promisor may actually pay a sum of money that the parties understand is to be retained by the promisee if the promise is not performed. If the sum is a reasonable one that would be sustained as liquidated damages under the rule stated in § 356, the promisee is entitled to retain it. If it is not, the promisor is entitled to restitution under the rule stated in Subsection (1). The test of reasonableness is the same as that applicable to a provision for liquidated damages. See Comment b to § 356. The understanding of the parties may be shown by the terms of their agreement, by description of the sum as “earnest money” or by usage. The sum may or may not be part of the price to be paid by the promisor. The same principle applies if what is to be retained by the promisee is property other than money.
6. The facts being otherwise as stated in Illustration 1, the contract provides that on default by B, A has the right to retain the first $10,000 installment paid by B. If $10,000 is a reasonable amount, B can recover only $20,000 from A in restitution.
Restatement § 261. Discharge By Supervening Impracticability
Where, after a contract is made, a party's performance is made impracticable without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made, his duty to render that performance is discharged, unless the language or the circumstances indicate the contrary.
Restatement § 262. Death Or Incapacity Of Person Necessary For Performance
(Taylor v. Caldwell?)
restatement § 266. Existing Impracticability Or Frustration
(1) Where, at the time a contract is made, a party's performance under it is impracticable without his fault because of a fact of which he has no reason to know and the non-existence of which is a basic assumption on which the contract is made, no duty to render that performance arises, unless the language or circumstances indicate the contrary.
(2) Where, at the time a contract is made, a party's principal purpose is substantially frustrated without his fault by a fact of which he has no reason to know and the non-existence of which is a basic assumption on which the contract is made, no duty of that party to render performance arises, unless the language or circumstances indicate the contrary.
restatement § 263. Destruction, Deterioration Or Failure To Come Into Existence Of Thing Necessary For Performance
If the existence of a specific thing is necessary for the performance of a duty, its failure to come into existence, destruction, or such deterioration as makes performance impracticable is an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made.
Restatement § 264. Prevention By Governmental Regulation Or Order
(Centex v. Dalton)
Restatement § 265. Discharge By Supervening Frustration
(Washington State Hop Producers v. Goschie, Krell v. Henry?)
Restatement § 271. Impracticability As Excuse For Non-Occurrence Of A Condition
Impracticability excuses the non-occurrence of a condition if the occurrence of the condition is not a material part of the agreed exchange and forfeiture would otherwise result.
Restatement § 272. Relief Including Restitution
(1) In any case governed by the rules stated in this Chapter, either party may have a claim for relief including restitution under the rules stated in §§ 240and 377.
(2) In any case governed by the rules stated in this Chapter, if those rules together with the rules stated in Chapter 16 will not avoid injustice, the court may grant relief on such terms as justice requires including protection of the parties' reliance interests.
UCC § 2-609. Right to Adequate Assurance of Performance.
(AMF v. McDonalds)
UCC § 2-610. Anticipatory Repudiation.
§ 250. When A Statement Or An Act Is A Repudiation
(Hochster v. De La Tour)
(a) a statement by the obligor to the obligee indicating that the obligor will commit a breach that would of itself give the obligee a claim for damages for total breach under § 243, or
§ 251. When A Failure To Give Assurance May Be Treated As A Repudiation
(Taylor v. Johnson - anticipatory breach,
(1) Where reasonable grounds arise to believe that the obligor will commit a breach by non-performance that would of itself give the obligee a claim for damages for total breach under § 243, the obligee may demand adequate assurance of due performance and may, if reasonable, suspend any performance for which he has not already received the agreed exchange until he receives such assurance.
(2) The obligee may treat as a repudiation the obligor's failure to provide within a reasonable time such assurance of due performance as is adequate in the circumstances of the particular case.
§ 252. Effect Of Insolvency
(1) Where the obligor's insolvency gives the obligee reasonable grounds to believe that the obligor will commit a breach under the rule stated in § 251, the obligee may suspend any performance for which he has not already received the agreed exchange until he receives assurance in the form of performance itself, an offer of performance, or adequate security.
(2) A person is insolvent who either has ceased to pay his debts in the ordinary course of business or cannot pay his debts as they become due or is insolvent within the meaning of the federal bankruptcy law.
§ 253. Effect Of A Repudiation As A Breach And On Other Party's Duties
§ 254. Effect Of Subsequent Events On Duty To Pay Damages
(1) A party's duty to pay damages for total breach by repudiation is discharged if it appears after the breach that there would have been a total failure by the injured party to perform his return promise.
(2) A party's duty to pay damages for total breach by repudiation is discharged if it appears after the breach that the duty that he repudiated would have been discharged by impracticability or frustration before any breach by non-performance.
§ 255. Effect Of A Repudiation As Excusing The Non-Occurrence Of A Condition
§ 256. Nullification Of Repudiation Or Basis For Repudiation
(1) The effect of a statement as constituting a repudiation under § 250 or the basis for a repudiation under § 251 is nullified by a retraction of the statement if notification of the retraction comes to the attention of the injured party before he materially changes his position in reliance on the repudiation or indicates to the other party that he considers the repudiation to be final.
(2) The effect of events other than a statement as constituting a repudiation under § 250 or the basis for a repudiation under § 251 is nullified if, to the knowledge of the injured party, those events have ceased to exist before he materially changes his position in reliance on the repudiation or indicates to the other party that he considers the repudiation to be final.
§ 235. Effect Of Performance As Discharge And Of Non-Performance As Breach
(1) Full performance of a duty under a contract discharges the duty.
(2) When performance of a duty under a contract is due any non-performance is a breach.
§ 236. Claims For Damages For Total And For Partial Breach
(1) A claim for damages for total breach is one for damages based on all of the injured party's remaining rights to performance.
(2) A claim for damages for partial breach is one for damages based on only part of the injured party's remaining rights to performance.
§ 237. Effect On Other Party's Duties Of A Failure To Render Performance
§ 238. Effect On Other Party's Duties Of A Failure To Offer Performance
§ 239. Effect On Other Party's Duties Of A Failure Justified By Non–Occurrence Of A Condition
(1) A party's failure to render or to offer performance may, except as stated in Subsection (2), affect the other party's duties under the rules stated in §§ 237 and 238 even though failure is justified by the non-occurrence of a condition.
(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) does not apply if the other party assumed the risk that he would have to perform in spite of such a failure.
§ 241. Circumstances Significant In Determining Whether A Failure Is Material
§ 242. Circumstances Significant In Determining When Remaining Duties Are Discharged
In determining the time after which a party's uncured material failure to render or to offer performance discharges the other party's remaining duties to render performance under the rules stated in §§ 237 and 238, the following circumstances are significant:
(a) those stated in § 241;
(b) the extent to which it reasonably appears to the injured party that delay may prevent or hinder him in making reasonable substitute arrangements;
(c) the extent to which the agreement provides for performance without delay, but a material failure to perform or to offer to perform on a stated day does not of itself discharge the other party's remaining duties unless the circumstances, including the language of the agreement, indicate that performance or an offer to perform by that day is important.
§ 243. Effect Of A Breach By Non-Performance As Giving Rise To A Claim For Damages For Total Breach
(Hancock v. Cohen)
(1) With respect to performances to be exchanged under an exchange of promises, a breach by non-performance gives rise to a claim for damages for total breach only if it discharges the injured party's remaining duties to render such performance, other than a duty to render an agreed equivalent under § 240.
(2) Except as stated in Subsection (3), a breach by non-performance accompanied or followed by a repudiation gives rise to a claim for damages for total breach.
(3) Where at the time of the breach the only remaining duties of performance are those of the party in breach and are for the payment of money in installments not related to one another, his breach by non-performance as to less than the whole, whether or not accompanied or followed by a repudiation, does not give rise to a claim for damages for total breach.
(4) In any case other than those stated in the preceding subsections, a breach by non-performance gives rise to a claim for total breach only if it so substantially impairs the value of the contract to the injured party at the time of the breach that it is just in the circumstances to allow him to recover damages based on all his remaining rights to performance.
§ 244. Effect Of Subsequent Events On Duty To Pay Damages
A party's duty to pay damages for total breach by non-performance is discharged if it appears after the breach that there would have been a total failure by the injured party to perform his return promise.
§ 245. Effect Of A Breach By Non-Performance As Excusing The Non-Occurrence Of A Condition
Restatement § 344. Purposes Of Remedies
Judicial remedies under the rules stated in this Restatement serve to protect one or more of the following interests of a promisee:
(a) his “expectation interest,” which is his interest in having the benefit of his bargain by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed,
(b) his “reliance interest,” which is his interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract not been made, or
(c) his “restitution interest,” which is his interest in having restored to him any benefit that he has conferred on the other party.
Restatement § 345. Judicial Remedies Available
The judicial remedies available for the protection of the interests stated in § 344 include a judgment or order
(a) awarding a sum of money due under the contract or as damages,
(b) requiring specific performance of a contract or enjoining its non-performance,
(c) requiring restoration of a specific thing to prevent unjust enrichment,
(d) awarding a sum of money to prevent unjust enrichment,
(e) declaring the rights of the parties, and
(f) enforcing an arbitration award.
Restatement § 346. Availability Of Damages
(1) The injured party has a right to damages for any breach by a party against whom the contract is enforceable unless the claim for damages has been suspended or discharged.
Restatment § 347. Measure Of Damages In General
Subject to the limitations stated in §§ 350-53, the injured party has a right to damages based on his expectation interest as measured by
(a) the loss in the value to him of the other party's performance caused by its failure or deficiency, plus
(c) any cost or other loss that he has avoided by not having to perform.
Restatement § 370. Requirement That Benefit Be Conferred
A party is entitled to restitution under the rules stated in this Restatement only to the extent that he has conferred a benefit on the other party by way of part performance or reliance.
UCC § 2-708. Seller's Damages for Non-acceptance or Repudiation.
UCC § 2-706. Seller's Resale Including Contract for Resale.
(1) Under the conditions stated in Section 2-703 on seller's remedies, the seller may resell the goodsconcerned or the undelivered balance thereof. Where the resale is made in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner the seller may recover the difference between the resale price and the contract price together with any incidental damages allowed under the provisions of this Article (Section 2-710), but less expenses saved in consequence of the buyer's breach.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) or unless otherwise agreed resale may be at public or private sale including sale by way of one or more contracts to sell or of identification to an existing contract of the seller. Sale may be as a unit or in parcels and at any time and place and on any terms but every aspect of the sale including the method, manner, time, place and terms must be commercially reasonable. The resale must be reasonably identified as referring to the broken contract, but it is not necessary that thegoods be in existence or that any or all of them have been identified to the contract before the breach.
(5) A purchaser who buys in good faith at a resale takes the goods free of any rights of the original buyereven though the seller fails to comply with one or more of the requirements of this section.
Restatement § 376. Restitution When Contract Is Voidable
A party who has avoided a contract on the ground of lack of capacity, mistake, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence or abuse of a fiduciary relation is entitled to restitution for any benefit that he has conferred on the other party by way of part performance or reliance.
Restatement § 377. Restitution In Cases Of Impracticability, Frustration, Non-Occurrence Of Condition Or Disclaimer By Beneficiary
A party whose duty of performance does not arise or is discharged as a result of impracticability of performance, frustration of purpose, non-occurrence of a condition or disclaimer by a beneficiary is entitled to restitution for any benefit that he has conferred on the other party by way of part performance or reliance.
restatement § 371. Measure Of Restitution Interest
If a sum of money is awarded to protect a party's restitution interest, it may as justice requires be measured by either
(a) the reasonable value to the other party of what he received in terms of what it would have cost him to obtain it from a person in the claimant's position, or
(b) the extent to which the other party's property has been increased in value or his other interests advanced.
ucc § 2-712. "Cover"; Buyer's Procurement of Substitute Goods.
(2) The buyer may recover from the seller as damages the difference between the cost of cover and thecontract price together with any incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined (Section 2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
ucc § 2-713. Buyer's Damages for Non-delivery or Repudiation.
(This changed reliance Cooperage)
UCC § 2-703. Seller's Remedies in General.
(American Mechanical v. Union Machine)
§ 2-709. Action for the Price.
(buyer can cover)
(b) in a proper case obtain specific performance or replevy the goods as provided in this Article (Section2-716).
Restatement § 348. Alternatives To Loss In Value Of Performance (Enforcement By Award Of Damages)
(Peevyhouse)
(2) If a breach results in defective or unfinished construction and the loss in value to the injured party is not proved with sufficient certainty, he may recover damages based on.
(a) the diminution in the market price of the property caused by the breach, or
(3) If a breach is of a promise conditioned on a fortuitous event and it is uncertain whether the event would have occurred had there been no breach, the injured party may recover damages based on the value of the conditional right at the time of breach.
Restatement § 347. Measure Of Damages In General
(Rivers v. Deane)
contrast with objective standard of 2-712/3 ??
§ 2-718. Liquidation or Limitation of Damages; Deposits.
(b) in the absence of such terms, twenty per cent of the value of the total performance for which thebuyer is obligated under the contract or $500, whichever is smaller.
(3) The buyer's right to restitution under subsection (2) is subject to offset to the extent that the sellerestablishes
(b) the amount or value of any benefits received by the buyer directly or indirectly by reason of thecontract.
(4) Where a seller has received payment in goods their reasonable value or the proceeds of their resale shall be treated as payments for the purposes of subsection (2); but if the seller has notice of the buyer's breach before reselling goods received in part performance, his resale is subject to the conditions laid down in this Article on resale by an aggrieved seller (Section 2-706).
§ 2-719. Contractual Modification or Limitation of Remedy.
(a) the agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided in this Article and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this Article, as by limiting thebuyer's remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of non-conforming goods or parts; and
Restatement § 350. Avoidability As A Limitation On Damages
(1) Except as stated in Subsection (2), damages are not recoverable for loss that the injured party could have avoided without undue risk, burden or humiliation.
(2) The injured party is not precluded from recovery by the rule stated in Subsection (1) to the extent that he has made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to avoid loss.
Restatement § 351. Unforeseeability And Related Limitations On Damages
(Spang Industries)
Restatement § 352. Uncertainty As A Limitation On Damages
Restatement § 353. Loss Due To Emotional Disturbance
(Bohac v. Dept of Agriculture)
Recovery for emotional disturbance will be excluded unless the breach also caused bodily harm or the contract or the breach is of such a kind that serious emotional disturbance was a particularly likely result.
Restatement § 355. Punitive Damages
(Boise Dodge v. Clark)
Restatement § 2-715. Buyer's Incidental and Consequential Damages.
(hydraform v. American Steel)
Restatement § 358. Form Of Order And Other Relief
Restatement § 359. Effect Of Adequacy Of Damages
Restatement § 360. Factors Affecting Adequacy Of Damages
Restatement § 363. Effect Of Insecurity As To The Agreed Exchange
Restatement § 362. Effect Of Uncertainty Of Terms
(Lacelede v. Amoco)
Restatement § 366. Effect Of Difficulty In Enforcement Or Supervision
(Lacelede v. Amoco, Walgreen)
Buyer's Rights on Improper Delivery
Subject to the provisions of this Article on breach in installment contracts (Section 2-612) and unless otherwise agreed under the sections on contractual limitations of remedy (Sections 2-718 and 2-719), if the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may: