387 Final Review1_StudyGuide

387 Final Review1_StudyGuide - Contracts Needs 4 elements...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts Needs 4 elements: - Offer - Semantics matter – words make the contract - I am offering is a contract offer - I am asking probably isn’t - Remains open for a reasonable time –a jury question – unless otherwise stipulated in the contract - Acceptance - Consideration - Both parties must give something up that they are legally entitled to do - It doesn’t matter what the worth was - If there is no consideration it is just a gift - Meeting of the Minds - Determined by an objective standpoint - What a reasonable person observing the conversation would have believed - Manifest intentions is what counts Defenses to Contracts - Intoxication - Rule: The contract is voidable by the drunk person only - Minors: - Rule: Voidable by the minor only BUT the adult can attempt to get back what they gave up to the minor if it still in the minors possession - Insanity: - Rule (Legaly insane – a court has found them insane) The contract is void – neither party can enforce it - Rule (Clinically insane – a doctor found them insane) Voidable by the insane person only - Mistake: (must be about the material aspect of the contract – i.e.: what kind of house to be built) - Mutual – - Voids contract if material in nature - Example: Barron cow – the difference in value between the value of a cow that can bear calves and one that cannot – contract was void - Does not void if it is just a mistake in value - Example: Locked safe with money inside –not void because it was only a question of value - Example: Warhol painting – if no one knew it was a Warhol and it was sold for $10 – the contract is NOT voidable - Unilateral (only one person made a mistake)– - Void if material in nature if two conditions are met: - Defendant knew plaintiff was making a mistake AND - It would be unconscionable to enforce the contract - Example: Warhol Painting – buyer knows the painting is valuable and it is worth $10 million but sold for $10. Difference in value is the unconscionable part - Parole Evidence Rule - Integrated Contract : Everything that you would want in a contract appears to be there BUT there have been oral or written communication that has become before or after the written contract has been made - If you have a prior written or oral communication that contradicts the contract but was sent before the contract it is NOT admissible - If you have a prior written or oral communication that clarifies the contract and was sent before the written contract is signed it is admissible Page 1 of 6
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
- Everything that comes after the integrated contract are admissible - Statute of Frauds (oral communication) - Oral contracts are enforceable unless they violate the statute of frauds - SOF: states that certain types of contracts need to be in writing - Involves real land (oral is unenforceable) - Contract could not possible be completed in one year (oral is unenforceable) - Does not go to whether or not it was completed in one year – it does go to whether or not it
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This test prep was uploaded on 02/19/2009 for the course H ADM 387 taught by Professor Dsherwyn during the Fall '07 term at Cornell.

Page1 / 6

387 Final Review1_StudyGuide - Contracts Needs 4 elements...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online