Unformatted text preview: threated, or proof that one party to contract has threatened to breach the agreement by withholding goods unless the other party agrees to some further demands. Rational: The appellate court labeled the incident as a “self-imposed, undisclosed and subjective,” however it’s perfectly reasonable for Loral to consider itself in an emergency duress situation because they have to deliver a staggered amount to the navy each month, and if they don’t deliever, then they may jepedorize their ability to gain future contracts with the Navy. Holding: Loral deserves recover the damages it incurred from a duress situation, from the price hike. They can recover through restitution after the contract was completed. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document
- Fall '11
- Contract Law, economic duress, contractor, Austin Instruments