Contracts I - Class Notes

Contracts I - Class Notes - Contracts I Class Notes...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Contracts I Class Notes www.swapnotes.com Page 1 of 63 Professor Jacobson Fall 2004 8/30/04 Hawkins v. McGee Hawkins had 2 claims: 1. oral contract breached between dr. and patient to give perfect or good hand- breach of contract 2. Negligence- dr. was careless. Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence, so thrown out by the court- non-suit Motion- request to the court for an order The motion that award was excessive was good-Dr. McGee granted a remittitur-after verdict, dr. asked for a new trial unless Hawkins remit all $ over $500. Hawkins appealed b/c didnt want less $ saying trail judge made error of law in granting remittitur. McGee made own list of legal errors. SC said: 1. Trial judge should have granted dr.s motion for directed verdict b/c insufficient evidence for the jury to use ( sufficiency test ) and then error was instructions to the jury about damages. Subjective theory of contract formation-McGee wanted court to instruct jury that contract only exists if both parties believe they are making a K. But in NH, follow objective theory-only 1 person had to think K-if a reasonable person could think an offer for K was made, and then if person does, K valid. *Intent of the offerer is irrelevant to the formation of the contract if a reasonable person would understand that a K was made. 2. damage instruction was wrong-that they should restore him monetarily to the position he was in before the operation and compensate for worsening of conditions (this was premised on the tort damage measure-restore person to position before the tort) *this would have been measure of damage had the negligence claim prevailed b/c negligence is a tort. >needs to be contract measure here b/c Hawkins used the K theory to go to trial. K damages put the promise in the position he would have been in had the promissor performed. (THE P PHRASE) K damages look to the future hypothetical position he would have been in, while tort damages look to the position in the past and restore that position. Three interests being considered in breach of K cases: 1- reliance-$ lost for following K bought stove and now dont want 2- restitution-$ gained by breaching party 3- expectancy-promised future condition diff b/t $ in K and lesser amount got What would we have to do with Hawkins to do the p phrase? 1. What he would have been able to do with good hand and the damaged hand he has for all his work over his whole life and discount it. (Discount Rate-how much do you have to discount to determine the PV of future income=based on the risk-free interest rate [t-bill rate]) 2. Doctrine of Mitigation-compensate for cost of a second operation that would repair his hand. Contracts I Class Notes www.swapnotes.com Page 2 of 63 Professor Jacobson Fall 2004 Sullivan v. OConner-court says if dr. had been negligent, even though claim is for breach of K, then give the patient K damages. If dr. wasnt neg, just breach of K, then only give victim torts damages....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/29/2008 for the course LAW Contracts taught by Professor Goodrich during the Spring '08 term at Yeshiva.

Page1 / 63

Contracts I - Class Notes - Contracts I Class Notes...

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