This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: I. Preliminaries A. Scope of the Course 1. Article Two UCC a. Official comment to 2-105 says the UCC can be applied by analogy if it is sensible to apply there if it alters the common law. b. Article Two applies to goods i Good is something that is moveable at the time of identification to the contract. 1 Sale is transaction that passes title to a physical thing that is moveable when it is committed to the buyer. 2 Generally, doesnt apply to sales of intangibles. (amended article two makes this a bit clearer by excluding information) 3 Specially manufactured goods, such as the car built by engineer, are goods 4 The Bonebrake test asks whether the transaction is predominately a sale of a good or a contract to provide a service ii These are not usually goods 1 Real estate 2 Intellectual Property 3 Labor 4 Unmovable house B. Promises the law will enforce. 1. Basis for enforcing promise? a. Consideration b. Promissory estoppel 2. A ssent ? a. Has D voluntarily undertaken a contractual obligation, or b. lead someone to believe hed voluntarily undertaken a contractual obligation? 3. K contain required formality ? a. Statute of Frauds b. Indefiniteness II. Basis for enforcing a promise A. Consideration: 1. Defined: Consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. Legal detriment. Abstained from a legal right. Hammer v. Sidway. 2. Purpose: distinguishes binding bargained-for exchanges from gifts 3. As X is consideration for Bs Y if a. Bargain test is satisfied b. Party A was not already legal duty to do X. 4. Bargain Test: : Promise is given to induce the act (or promise), and the act is given to induce the promise. a. Uses an objective standard= did each gain something to mutual benefit? Did promise induce action, action done to induce promise? 5. Equality of consideration is not a problem unless it is clearly a pretense and there is no bargain. a. Unequal exchanges permitted i Unequal exchange of money might indicate lack of real bargain. 5000 for 1. ii Batsakis v. Demotis ($25 now for $2000 later): hard but fair bargain: needed $25, so it was what induced her to make promise for $2000 later. At this stage, law doesnt care if fair bargain, so long as bargain....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/19/2008 for the course LAW contracts taught by Professor Sokolow during the Spring '07 term at University of Texas at Austin.
- Spring '07
- Common Law