Contracts 2 cases (burton's book)

Contracts 2 cases (burton's book) - GIANNI v R RUSSEL CO 4...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
4 corners rule if parties think prior agreements are important enough, they’d include them in the K Collateral agreement- additional terms in the scope of the writing that do not contradict any existing terms MASTERSON v. SINE Intent / California analysis Look at intent of document, not statue Integration can be determined by parole evidence DENNISON v. HARDEN Ambiguities resolves by attaching the broadest possible meaning Fruit tree case Ambiguities based on parties intentions Contextual interpretation Court rejects plain meaning interpretation FRIGALIMENT Chicken case Ambiguities resolved based on which party has the burden of showing the narrower meaning CORENSWET INC. v. AMANA REFRIGERATION INC Exclusive distributorship Express right prevails over course of dealing Company can terminate at will despite long-term relationship NANAKULI PAVING v. SHELL OIL CO. SPAULDING v. MORSE Terms implied through intent of drafters and object of the agreement BRINDERSON-NEWBERG v. PACIFIC ERECTORS Picts and sets case Reasonable person test - terms interpreted as a reasonable person would in that field EASTERN AIR LINES v. GULF OIL CORP Π had supply requirements K w/ fixed price and then market price rose Π used established practices in GF to meet Δs need following price increase Π had supply requirements K w/ fixed price and then market price rose Π acted in BF and took advantage of the situation by acting outside established trade practices Πs acts were not foreseeable 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
BLOOR v. FALSTAFF BREWING CO. GF implied in exclusive dealings Δ had discretion on marketing Πs beer to its best ability, but acted in BF to increase its own profits; Πs beer neglected WOOD v. LUCY-LADY DUFF GORDON GF implied in exclusive dealings Judge says reasonable efforts will be used to preserve K and make exclusivity possible CITIZENS FOR PRESERVATION OF WATERMAND LAKE v. DAVIS Law performance doctrine - imply terms on statute or city ordinance that is expected to be adopted where its applicable Both parties must follow ordinance Δs didn’t follow ordinance but ordinance provided that state official is the only one who can enforce it so Πs lose LUTTINGER v. ROSEN Express conditions must be exactly performed Duties are not due if condition is met Seller didn’t arrange mortgage at agreed specifications so buyer is not entitled to buy the house PEACOCK CONSTRUCTION v. MODERN AIR CONDITIONING Exception to general rule that express conditions must be exactly performed Ambiguity in language modified on fairness argument Risk allocated to party in best position to assume it General K in better position than sub K to assume risk of non-payment from owner BURGER KING v. FAMILY DINING Waiver following non-enforcement of strict building schedule Course of dealing leads to Π not being able to enforce express term even though no
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 03/27/2008 for the course LAW 101 taught by Professor Bohannan during the Fall '08 term at University of Iowa.

Page1 / 8

Contracts 2 cases (burton's book) - GIANNI v R RUSSEL CO 4...

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