{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Rules_of_Law___FINAL - LEGAL CONCEPT RULE OF LAW CASE NAME...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LEGAL CONCEPT RULE OF LAW CASE NAME Kirksey v. Kirksey Gift/ Gratuity Kirksey v. Kirksey Consideration Kirksey v. Kirksey (Promissory) Equitable Estoppel Rickets v. Scothorn Unjust Enrichment Unjust Enrichment Dews v. Halliburton Brooks v. Steffes Offer and Acceptance Normile v. Miller Enforceability of an Offer Southworth v. Oliver Advertisments as Offers Izadi v. Machado Ford Advertisments as Offers Leonard v. Pepsico Modes of Acceptance Panhandle v. Nowlin Modes of Acceptance Beard v. Krusa Modes of Acceptance Russell v. Texas Co. Modes of Acceptance Modes of Acceptance State of Washington v. Wheeler Content of An Acceptance Flender v. Tippins Content of An Acceptance Step-Saver v. Wyse Content of An Acceptance Klocek v. Gateway Revocation of Offers Dickinson v. Dodds Irrevocable Offers Drennan v. Star Paving Co. Indefinite Agreements Consideration Hamer v. Sidway Consideration Langer v. Superior Steel Corporation Consideration In Re Greene Consideration Maszewski Consideration Lawrence Pre-Existing Duty Rule White Worley v. Wyoming Bottling Co. Freeman Mills Webb Section 86 of the Restatement Webb Promissory Estoppel Hoffman Promissory Estoppel Malleable Promissory Estoppel Elvis Promissory Estoppel Cessna Kinoshita The Statute of Frauds Rauschenberg Illegality/Against Public Policy Baby M Against Public Policy A.C. v. C.B. Lack of Capacity: Infancy Halbman Lack of Capacity: Mental Illness Ford Lack of Capacity: Duress Bond Economic Duress Sosnoff Undue Influence Ferguson Misrepresentation Vokes Misrepresentation Skyfox Misrepresentation Kang Misrepresentation: Duty to Disclose Hill Misrepresentation: Duty to Disclose Stambovsky Unconscionability Walker-Thomas Furniture Company Unconscionability In re Gudmundson Establishment of a Contract under the Bargain Principle To be a contract, there must be some exchange of sufficient consideration, something of value. There is no legal duty to fulfill a promise; a gift is not enforceable. Loss & inconvience does not constitute sufficient consideration A gift is not enforceable, but a promissory note, that induces a recipient to alter position for the worse on the faith of that note being paid, is enforceable, despite a lack of consideration (in other words the recipient does not give anything in return) under the cause of action known as equitable estoppel. Unjust enrichment is present when 1) the giver acted in good faith (with no purpose to take advantage of recipient), 2) the giver expected compensation (service was not a gift), 3) the giver did not act officiously, 4) the actor conferred a benefit, 5) the recipient retained the benefit 6) it is not fair to grant recovery. Scheva v. True Unjust enrichment is present when 1) the giver acted in good faith (with no purpose to take advantage of recipient), 2) the giver expected compensation (service was not a gift), 3) the giver did not act officiously, 4) the actor conferred a benefit, 5) the recipient retained the benefit 6) it is not fair to grant recovery.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}