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

Info iconThis 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
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight 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
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 03/10/2008 for the course CORE 905 taught by Professor Pratt,carla during the Spring '07 term at Penn State.

Page1 / 5

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

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