Roy Outline 1

Roy Outline 1 - Contracts Outline Roy § 3 Fall 2004 K-...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Contracts Outline Roy § 3 Fall 2004 K- agreement b/t two or more people. An exchange of promises. Not necessarily in writing. Two approaches to K law: 1. Classical Approach- Objective Theory of K- it doesn’t matter what parties thought or intended, but what a reasonable person in position of parties would have thought or intended. Mutual assent is not necessary. If parties’ actions, judged by a standard of reasonableness, manifest an intention to agree, then the real state of the party’s mind is irrelevant. –What would a reasonable person have thought? Ray v. Eurice Bros.- Duty to read rule; Park 100- fraud is a valid defense. 2. Modern Approach- tries to be fair, looks at intent of parties. Elements: 1. Offer 2. Acceptance 3. Consideration 1) Offer- a manifest intention to be bound w/out further assent a) communication by offeror b) creating a reasonable expectation in the offeree c) offeror is willing to enter into a K d) specified terms e) offeree need only accept to form a K- R. §70- One who makes a written offer which is accepted, is bound, though ignorant of the terms. Obj. Theory. 2) Acceptance- offeree has “power of acceptance” that is terminated at time specified in offer, or, if not time specified, at end of a reasonable time (depends on circumstances). R. §41: Mailbox Rule- revocation effective when rec’d; acceptance when dispatched.- qualified acceptance = counter offer = rejection- revoke at any time b/f acceptance. Effective when communicated (directly or indirectly). Normile v. Miller- “you snooze, you lose” by agent was held to be effective indirect revocation. Bilateral K- exchange of promises Unilateral K- promise in exchange for an act 1- Classical Approach: free to revoke b/f completion of full performance Peterson v. Pattberg- Modern Approach: part performance may create an option K- R.§45 R. §32- in case of doubt, offeree may choose to accept offer by performance or promise to perform-uni or bi. 3) Consideration- must be something “bargained-for exchange” R. .§71: Consideration a) to constitute consideration, a performance or return promise must be bargained for b) bargained for = if it’s sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise and is given by the promise in exchange for that promise c) Performance may consist of: i. Act ii. Forbearance iii. Creation, Modification, or Destruction of Legal Relation CONSIDERATION: Hamer v. Sidway- Classical consideration- Benefit/Detriment Test= benefit to promisor or detriment to promise. Legal Detriment- someone forbears from doing something that they are legally entitled to do. In this case, boy refrained from drinking, smoking, swearing until 21. Baehr v. Penn-O-Tex- Bargained-for exchange is test for consideration. Here, forbearance not to sue was not induced by promise. Ct. did say that forbearance to sue could be consideration, just not here....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/10/2011 for the course LAW 501 taught by Professor Roy during the Fall '08 term at Ole Miss.

Page1 / 24

Roy Outline 1 - Contracts Outline Roy § 3 Fall 2004 K-...

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