October 6 Briefs and Notes

October 6 Briefs and Notes - October 6, 2008 III. The...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
October 6, 2008 III. The Illusory Promise Would an illusory promise have value? Illusory: a promise which is discretionary on the promise, if by making a promise, you have restricted your future action, it is not illusory, but if you don’t restrict your future action by making a promise then it is illusory. Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon Court of Appeals of NY, 1917 Law: Facts: The defendant was a fashion guru and she hired the plaintiff agency to have the exclusive right to her endorsements and fashion designs. The plaintiff was to find business for the defendant and in return, the plaintiff was to receive ½ of all the income. The defendant placed her endorsements on fabrics without the knowledge of the plaintiff and thereby withheld profits from the plaintiff. Reasoning: Even though the contract does not explicitly states that the plaintiff has to perform some duties, but such can be implied from the contract. According to the court, “The law has outgrown its primitive stage or formalism when the precise word was the sovereign talisman, and every slip was fatal. It takes a broader view today.” The plaintiff was suppose to find business for the defendant and the money generated from such business was to be shared by the parties. So it can be implied from the contract that the plaintiff was to make reasonable efforts to find potential business for the defendant. Therefore, the contract is enforceable. Issue: Was the contract between the plaintiff and defendant enforceable? Procedure: In the lower court, defendant’s motion for judgment was dismissed. The Appellate Division reversed this ruling. Now the plaintiff appeals. Holding: Reversed. Notes from the Case: Trying to get him to promise her right to exclusively market her clothes. Implies that he will make best efforts to promote her goods. If you enter into an exclusive dealing contract, you must use best efforts, even if it’s not in the contract, the code will imply it. Sylvan Crest Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States US Court of Appeals, 2 nd Circuit, 1945 Law: Upon entering into a contract both parties must follow through with what was agreed, or else give reasonable notice to the other of intent to break the contract. Contracts are two sided in that restrictions that are placed on one party must also be placed on the other. Facts: P entered into a contract with D agreeing to deliver a trap rock to an airport project. The rock was to be delivered "as required" and within a reasonable amount of time. Delivery was to start immediately. The rock was never requested by the D. The rock was never cancelled by the D. The contract read that "cancellation could occur at any time" Reasoning: It is clear from the facts both parties supposed they were entering into an enforceable contract. A promise by D to pay the stated price was implied. Likewise, the P made a promise to
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
deliver rock at the stated price. The D’s power of cancellation could not have been unrestricted and was
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 10/20/2009 for the course CONTRACTS 108 taught by Professor Cox during the Fall '08 term at McMaster University.

Page1 / 7

October 6 Briefs and Notes - October 6, 2008 III. The...

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