This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: LEGAL CONCEPT RULE OF LAW CASE NAME Kirksey v. Kirksey Gift/ Gratuity Kirksey v. Kirksey Consideration Kirksey v. Kirksey (Promis ory) Equitable Estop el Rickets v. Scothorn Unjust Enrichment Unjust Enrichment Dews v. Hal iburton Bro ks v. Stef es Of er and Ac eptance Normile v. Mil er Enforceability of an Of er Southworth v. Oliver Advertisments as Of ers Izadi v. Machado Ford Advertisments as Of ers Leonard v. Pepsico Modes of Ac eptance Panhandle v. Nowlin Modes of Ac eptance Beard v. Krusa Modes of Ac eptance Rus el v. Texas Co. Modes of Ac eptance Modes of Ac eptance State of Washington v. Whe ler Content of An Ac eptance Flender v. Tip ins Content of An Ac eptance Step-Saver v. Wyse Content of An Ac eptance Klocek v. Gateway Revocation of Of ers Dickinson v. Dod s Ir evocable Of ers Dren an v. Star Paving Co. Indefinite Agre ments Consideration Hamer v. Sidway Consideration Langer v. Superior Ste l Corporation Consideration In Re Gre ne Consideration Maszewski Consideration Lawrence Pre-Existing Duty Rule White Worley v. Wyoming Bot ling Co. Fre man Mil s Web Section 86 of the Restatement Web Promis ory Estop el Hof man Promis ory Estop el Mal eable Promis ory Estop el Elvis Promis ory Estop el Ces na Kinoshita The Statute of Frauds Rauschenberg Il egality/Against Public Policy Baby M Against Public Policy A.C. v. C.B. Lack of Capacity: Infancy Halbman Lack of Capacity: Mental Il nes Ford Lack of Capacity: Dures Bond Economic Dures Sosnof Undue Influence Ferguson Misrepresentation Vokes Misrepresentation Skyfox Misrepresentation Kang Misrepresentation: Duty to Disclose Hil 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 m ust be som e exchange of suf icient consideration, something of value. There is no legal duty to fulfil a prom ise; a gift is not enforceable. Los & inconvience does not constitute suf icient consideration A gift is not enforceable, but a prom is ory 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 estop el. Unjust enrichm ent is present when 1) the giver acted in go d 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 of iciously, 4) the actor confer ed a benefit, 5) the recipient retained the benefit 6) it is not fair to grant recovery. Scheva v. True Unjust enrichm ent is present when 1) the giver acted in go d 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 of iciously, 4) the actor confer ed a benefit, 5) the recipient retained the benefit 6) it is not fair to grant recovery.it is not fair to grant recovery....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/30/2008 for the course CONTRACTS 1 taught by Professor Daicoff during the Fall '06 term at Florida Coastal School of Law.
- Fall '06