C&J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.

C&J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co....

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts 10/31/08 Principles of Interpretation Facts : defendant insurance company refuses to pay claim for burglary. Policy required visible marks on exterior building, and none existed. Holding : judgment for plaintiff; policy violated the reasonable expectations of insured. Roy Notes : Dickered = bargained-for *Reasonable Expectations Doctrine- a party is not bound to non-dickered boilerplate terms where party making terms had reason to believe that adhering party would not have agreed to terms, had he known of the terms (§211(3) – standard forms).
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: • This is a contradiction of duty to read rule. • Policy: Inequality of bargaining power, almost an adhesion K. Court knows people don’t read Ks. §211 Standardized Agreements – where the other party has reason to believe that the party manifesting such assent would not do so if he knew that the writing contained a particular term, the term is not part of the agreement. *3 things to look for to determine if term violates R.E.D. : 1. Bizarre or Oppressive 2. Eliminates Dominant Purpose of Transaction 3. Boilerplate Overrides Dickered Term • RED generally applies in insurance Ks b/c they are adhesion Ks...
View Full Document

  • Fall '08
  • Roy
  • defendant insurance company, non-dickered boilerplate terms, Boilerplate Overrides Dickered, Interpretation C&J Fertilizer

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online