Negligence many courts hold that a unilateral mistake

This preview shows page 28 - 29 out of 34 pages.

Types: Mistake of fact (clerical) easier to argue as a genuine mistake than mistake of judgment.  Negligence : Many courts hold that a unilateral mistake must be non-neg, but there’s tendency to relax this  where proof of mistake is strong & effect of enforcement is devastating o Some courts: can’t be gross negligence.  o Some courts: can be neg as long as good faith (lacking bad faith) o Restatement: no requirement of non-negligent, only good faith and fair dealing Unilateral mistake: Could be used to trump Promissory Estoppel  in Drennan style cases! o Wil-Fred v Metro  (P bid on D’s project, miscalculated by $150,000, sued to get back $100,000  deposit, would have lost $2-3 million in credit if it lost it, court allowed recission because P exercised reasonable care) Changed Circumstances (Impossibility, Impracticability, Frustration of Purpose) Involve changes in circumstances that occur b/t the making of the K and the time set forth for performance These are all low probability moves bc we don’t want pple having escape hatches to K they have entered into. All three assume non-performance party is not at fault for change in circumstances. Order of arguments 1) impossibility 2) Impracticability 3) Frustration (no one likes a frustrated K) UCC mentions Impracticability and impossibility in §615- but not frustration! Classic/Strict Contractual Liability – Nonperformance actionable when D fails to perform. Any failure to perform a contractual obligation gives aggrieved party cause of action – non-performance is strict Modern - certain circumstances we let you off the hook (it seems odd to tell people they have to perform even though it is really impossible) How the parties talked about the contract is crucial     !    How much detail was used when parties negotiated the contract? What is purpose of contract? Impossibility  – When person or thing “necessary for performance” of the K dies, is incapacitated, destroyed, or  damaged, duty of performance is excused.   Requires a showing of literal,  objective impossibility  (no one could do it) not subj (I couldn’t do it) A party pleading impossibility as a defense must demonstrate that it took virtually every action within its  powers to perform its duties under the K RST §261:  Even if a party contracts to render a performance that depends on some act by a third party, he’s  not ordinarily discharged because of a failure by that party because this is also a risk that’s commonly  understood to be on the obligor Ex: Jon Vought’s car bursts into flames – excused; generic Nissan Sentra – not excused bc can get another o Unique good thing is destroyed – contract is impossible (ex: want Rembrandt to paint me a painting  but he dies – impossible) Impracticability

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture