cases - Ray v Williams G Eurice Bros Inc(Mutual Mistake 1...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ray v. Williams G. Eurice & Bros., Inc. ( Mutual Mistake ) 1. Since no fraud or duress and because only a unilateral mistake when signing contract, Eurice Bros.’ lack of performance constitute breach of contract 2. Duty to read is only applicable where transaction is not tainted by fraud Park 100 Investors, Inc. v. Kartes ( Fraud and Nondisclosure) - Park 100 knew forms were guarantee forms but didn’t tell the Kartes and rushed them to sign- Misrepresentation 1. If related to subject matter of contract- duty to read would be apt 2. If something does not relate- then could be fraud- circumstantial Hamer v. Sidway - Son had legal rights to drink and smoke but gave up when father promised him - Waiver of any legal right at the request of another party is a sufficient consideration for a promise Dougherty v. Salt - 8 year old boy given promissory note by aunt for 3,000 dollars at her death or before for being nice boy, Note contained words “value received” - Note is a promise of a gift Baehr v. Penn-O-Tex Oil Corp TESTS Benefit/Detriment Test - benefit to one/ detriment to other Bargain-for-exchange Test - Something for Something Penn-O-Tex merely making a prediction, not undertaking or assuming a personal obligation to pay the rent in the future Batsakis v. Demotsis - B having hard time during WWII and receives 25 dollars- with agreement to pay D back 2,000 dollars - Court of Chicago School - no pressure by either party- market acts on its own - Other Theorists Views: o Classical- contract, she signed it, done deal o Economic (Chicago)- efficient, if market bears it, it’s fair o Unconscionable - always look when one party is stronger and other is weaker 1
Image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
o Economic Duress (Nazi Germany)- group of people create the circumstances and then benefit from them- unfair Plowman v. Indian Refining Co. - Employer fired employees, told them they would receive paychecks, payments stop - Getting paychecks was NOT CONSIDERATION - Moral consideration is inadequate Kirksey v. Kirksey - P moved to brother-in-law’s land after husband died and after some time, P was kicked off - D’s promise found to be a mere gratuity and that no action will lie for its breach Greiner v. Greiner - Frank was promised land/house if he moved back to Mother’s land -
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern