EconLawTest2Cases

EconLawTest2Cases - H amer v. Sidway Court of Appeals of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. 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

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: H amer v. Sidway Court of Appeals of New York, 1891 Wm. E. Story, Sr. promised his nephew, Wm. E. Story, 2d, that he would pay him $5,000 if the nephew would refrain from drinking, using tobacco, & playing cards or billiards for money until he was 21 years old. The nephew satisfied these requirements & asked for the money. The uncle said he would give him the money when he got his feet on the ground. The nephew never got the money & transferred the r ight to receive the money & interest to Hamer. Then the uncle died. Hamer sued the executor of the uncle’s estate (Sidway) for the $5,000 plus interest. The defendant (Sidway) contended that the contract was without consideration & thus should not be enforced. Batsakis v. Demotsis Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1949 Demotsis found herself in difficult circumstances in Nazi-occupied Greece & borrowed money from Batsakis--Greek currency worth about $25 at the time. She signed a promissory note to repay the loan in U.S. currency--explicitly agreeing to pay $2,000 + interest. After the war the two met in the U.S. & Batsakis sought repayment of the full note but Demotsis offered to pay only $25 plus interest. For some unexplained reason, the jury in the t rial in Texas awarded Batsakis $750 plus interest. Batsakis appealed. H adley v. Baxendale Court of Exchequer, 1854 9 Exch. 341. H awkins v. McGee 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (N.H., 1929) In the above examples, the victims of breach valued performance according to market values. In this case, the victim of breach subjectively valued performances differently from the market. Plaintiff: George Hawkins Defendant: Dr. McGee Groves v. John Wunder Co. 286 N.W. 235 (S. Ct. of M innesota, 1939) Facts: Court Decision: Efficient Breach? Economic Issues? Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. 382 P2d 109, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 906 (Okla. 1962) Facts: Court Decision: Efficient Breach? Economic Issues? Post v. Jones 60 U.S. (19 How.) 150 (1857) Facts? Did this case involve “duress” or “necessity”? If either, which? Explain. Court’s Decision? Austin I nstrument, I nc. v. Loral Corporation (1971) Loral received contract #1 with Navy; Loral subcontracted Austin to make parts for the contract. A year later Loral received contract #2 with Navy; Loral wanted Austin to bid to be subcontractor again. But Austin was not the low bidder for this 2 nd subcontract & Austin told Loral it would not supply the parts for 1st contract unless it was given the 2 nd subcontract & given a price increase for the 1 st subcontract....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/11/2011 for the course ECON 4723 taught by Professor Jadlow during the Spring '11 term at Oklahoma State.

Page1 / 9

EconLawTest2Cases - H amer v. Sidway Court of Appeals of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online