Contracts- Spitz- Fall 2006-46pp

Contracts- Spitz- Fall 2006-46pp - I A ROADMAP FOR CONTRACT...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

I.  A ROADMAP FOR CONTRACT LAW L UCY   V . Z EHMER Facts: Zehmer (D) allegedly agreed to sell a plot of farmland to Lucy (P).  D signed napkin as the K.  D later said it  was only a joke.  P sued for specific performance.   Issue: Was a K created and is it enforceable. Holding: Yes, P entitled to  specific performance Rule: The private   intentions of the parties is irrelevant; If words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard,  manifest an intent to agree, it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of mind (17 CJS  Contracts § 32), see also  R(1) § 79 – THE PRIVATE INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ARE  IRRELEVANT, ONLY THE MANIFESTED ACTS Spitz’s Rule: If an offer appears to be in good faith, and is accepted in good faith, followed by the execution and  delivery of the K, then the K is valid Objective Theory of Contracts , Judge Hand (1911):  See page 9 of casebook.   - We must look to the outward expression of the person as manifesting his intention rather than to his secret and  unexpressed intention. - A K is formed by the mutual assent of the parties  - In determining whether the parties have mutually assented to a K, one should generally use the objective theory of Ks  (ie. determine what a reasonable person, to whom an expression has been addressed, would understand the expression  to mean) - This theory operates to protest the parties’ reasonable expectations  Capacity to Contract:    R2d § 12, see also sections 13-16  D ELCHI  C ARRIER  S PA   V . R OTOREX  C ORP . Facts: Delchi (P)   contracts with Rotorex (D) to buy compressors.  P pays for first two shipments in advance.  When  1 st  shipment is received, goods are non-conforming to model specs.  P rejects goods, breaches K.   Issue: Under the CISG, can P recover damages for non-conforming goods?  Holding: Yes.    P was entitled to lost profits, foreseeable consequential damages. P was not entitled to damages for  modifications necessary for cover.  CISG art. 74, Fundamental Breach R2d § 235(2)  - A breach is fundamental if it results in such detriment to the other party as  substantially to deprive him of what he is entitled to under the contract, unless a reasonable party could not have foreseen  the results. Breach in this case was obviously fundamental b/c D shipped non-conforming goods and refused to ship the goods  agreed upon.  It was foreseeable that sending non-conforming goods would deprive the buyer of what he K’d to receive.   BONUS POINTS : Great balls of fire High as a Georgia Pine House of Lords 3 Heifers
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

Issue Case Rule Key Terms Bargain Hamer v. Sidway
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern