Comprehensive Final Review Sheet

Comprehensive Final Review Sheet - 387 LAW FINAL REVIEW...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
387 LAW FINAL REVIEW SHEET CASES REVIEW: CASE 1: Courteen Seed v. Abraham: Issue: Importance of language 3 elements to a contract: offer, acceptance, consideration CASE 2: Vaskie v. West American: Issue 1: How long does an offer remain open? – a reasonable amount of time (answer!) (Statute of limitations runs – so can’t sue) Can be defined by the offer – i.e. say it in the contract A reasonable amount of time = depends on the circumstances Issue 2: Consideration – the value in the contract; because statue of limitations is up there is no consideration because she is trying to give up the right to sue which she already does not have Counter offer IS A REJECTION (and then another offer) – not bound to the original offer when a counter offer is made because the counter offer is rejecting the first offer so the first one is no longer valid CASE 3: Dourgoherty v. Salt: Issue: Consideration In order for there to be consideration: Both sides need to give something up Both sides need to get something Note: promise can only be enforceable if there was consideration Contract damages: Damages in contracts are your ACTUAL LOSSES Specific performance - when you actually have to perform the contract (limited to property and your performance is so special that no one else can do it) CASE 4: Lucy v. Zehmer: Issue: manifest intentions When we say “a meeting of the minds”, we go by what is said about the contact, NOT what people think about the contract (*if the words that you use are clear in what you are selling, then that’s what you go with*) Defenses: - intoxication, insanity, being a minor, mutual mistakes CASE 5: City of Everett v. Estate of Sumstad: Issue: Was there a mutual mistake here? Answer: NO, brought and sold a locked safe that happened to have money in it; both knew that the safe was locked CASE 6: Ohaninan v. Avis Rent a Car: Issue 1: implicit fact contact – people can say if you do a good job, you can have the job forever – is a contract 1
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
387 LAW FINAL REVIEW SHEET Issue 2: parole evidence rule – communication oral or written, made prior to integrated contracts is inadmissible if communications contradict the contract (won’t work because it was sent after the contract); [subsequent communications is fine] Example: Burger King will not build within 5 blocks by sending a letter to the franchise, and contract says BK will build is not in an upcoming contract) all you care about is the subsequent communications – all negotiations is admissible if it is clarifying that is ambiguous Issue 3: Statute of Frauds Oral contracts are not enforceable if: 1. if they deal with property 2. The contract cannot be performed in a year (not whether it is performed in a year, but if you CAN perform it in less than a year) CASE 7: Wooley v. Hoffmann-La Roche: Employee handbooks can be contracts, so you need to put a disclaimer saying that they are not contracts – don’t use definite language to make it less like a contract
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.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 12

Comprehensive Final Review Sheet - 387 LAW FINAL REVIEW...

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