K8s_awesome_final_K1 - Katherine Mohr Contracts Final Outline Page 1 of 9 Chapter One Introduction to Contract Law THREE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Katherine Mohr Contracts Final Outline Page 1 of 9 Chapter One: Introduction to Contract Law THREE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT LAW 1) THE BARGAIN PRINCIPLE BREACH OF K Kirksey: A mere gift or gratuity cannot be enforced as a K 2) RELIANCE PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL Elements of promissory estoppel: 1) promise by D 2) reliance by P 3) P’s reliance must be reasonable to a RPP 4) detriment or loss ( Hoffman) 5) injustice if P not remedied a. enforce promise ( Ricketts) b. make P whole again ( status quo ante ) ( Hoffman) 3) RESTITUTION UNJUST ENRICHMENT Elements of unjust enrichment 1) Benefit conferred by P 2) Retained by D 3) Without being paid for 4) P conferred benefit with expectation of payment 5) Benefit was not a gift 6) Benefit was wanted (not officious) by D 7) P did so in good faith 8) Unjust not to compensate P Sceva: where there is no express contract, a jury may from circumstances infer one, but not when a party lacks the capacity to contract Dews: Quasi-K, or K implied in law. This case adds concept of fairness to UE. P’s had business with Massey, but were able to pursue a COA against Dews because Dews was aware of the situation and was benefiting from the situation. Chapter Two: Contract Formation THE OBJECTIVE THEORY OF CONTRACT FORMATION Embry: Reasonable man in P’s position. (traveling salesman) K held by court despite D’s subjective intentions. U.S. Steel: whether a reasonable man socially situated as P would rely on statements in question (encouraging statements from person in managerial position [not a “higher up”]) Steffes: A K implied in fact can be found where services are rendered at the request of recipient and recipient is aware of the service(s) rendered. in the absence of an express K, words and actions can create an implied in fact K. THE DOCTRINE OF MISUNDERSTANDING (SUBJECTIVE APPROACH) Rest. §20: effect of misunderstanding 1) there is no manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange if the parties attach materially different meanings to their manifestations and a) neither party knows or has reason to know the meaning attached by the other; or b) each party knows or each party has reason to know the meaning attached by the other.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Katherine Mohr Contracts Final Outline Page 2 of 9 2) the manifestations of the parties are operative in accordance with the meaning attached to them by one of the parties if a) that party does not know any different meaning attached by the other, and the other knows the meaning attached by the first party; or b) that party has no reason to know of any different meaning attached by the other, and the other knows or has reason to know the meaning attached by the first party. Konic: “5620” No K found where both parties attributed reasonable but different meanings to the same term. [note this was a UCC case] Izadi: if one party knowing the other’s meaning manifests assent, only to insist on a different meaning later (bait n switch), a K is binding according to the innocent parties perception of the
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 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.

Page1 / 9

K8s_awesome_final_K1 - Katherine Mohr Contracts Final Outline Page 1 of 9 Chapter One Introduction to Contract Law THREE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF

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