LEGAL CONCEPTRULE OF LAWCASE NAMEKirksey v. KirkseyGift/ GratuityKirksey v. KirkseyConsiderationKirksey v. Kirksey(Promissory) Equitable EstoppelRickets v. ScothornUnjust EnrichmentUnjust EnrichmentDews v. HalliburtonBrooks v. SteffesOffer and AcceptanceNormile v. MillerEnforceability of an OfferSouthworth v. OliverAdvertisments as OffersIzadi v. Machado FordAdvertisments as OffersLeonard v. PepsicoModes of AcceptancePanhandle v. NowlinModes of AcceptanceBeard v. KrusaModes of AcceptanceRussell v. Texas Co.Modes of AcceptanceModes of AcceptanceState of Washington v. WheelerContent of An AcceptanceFlender v. TippinsContent of An AcceptanceStep-Saver v. WyseContent of An AcceptanceKlocek v. GatewayRevocation of OffersDickinson v. DoddsIrrevocable OffersDrennan v. Star Paving Co.Indefinite AgreementsConsiderationHamer v. SidwayConsiderationLanger v. Superior Steel CorporationConsiderationIn Re GreeneConsiderationMaszewskiConsiderationLawrencePre-Existing Duty RuleWhiteWorley v. Wyoming Bottling Co.FreemanMillsWebbSection 86 of the RestatementWebbPromissory EstoppelHoffmanPromissory EstoppelMalleablePromissory EstoppelElvisPromissory EstoppelCessnaKinoshitaThe Statute of FraudsRauschenbergIllegality/Against Public PolicyBaby MAgainst Public PolicyA.C. v. C.B.Lack of Capacity: Infancy HalbmanLack of Capacity: Mental IllnessFordLack of Capacity: DuressBondEconomic DuressSosnoffUndue InfluenceFergusonMisrepresentationVokesMisrepresentationSkyfoxMisrepresentationKangMisrepresentation: Duty to DiscloseHillMisrepresentation: Duty to DiscloseStambovskyUnconscionabilityWalker-Thomas Furniture CompanyUnconscionabilityIn re GudmundsonEstablishment of a Contract under the Bargain PrincipleTo 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 considerationA 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. TrueUnjust 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.
This is the end of the preview.
access the rest of the document.