Express terms expressed orallywritten b Implied in fact not in law Carroll v

Express terms expressed orallywritten b implied in

This preview shows page 8 - 11 out of 11 pages.

Express – terms expressed orally/writtenb.Implied – in fact, not in law Carroll v. Lee (1986) held: conduct indicated property acquired during relationship was part of joint enterprise and established existence on an implied-in-fact contract Deskovick v. Poriza (1963) son buys out, Deskovick dies of cancer, sons sue estate for $ paid for bills
Background image
held: for P – give them contract remedy even though no contract sues on basis of quazi-contract + get restitution G. Illegality Contracts that violate either: statue or policy are illegal and voidcontracts contrary to statue, including statues prohibiting: criminal acts and non-criminal acts contracts contrary to public policy general rule: freedom to contract outweighed by harm to public from enforcing contract a.covenants do not compete may be upheld ifthe covenant is ancillary to an otherwise valid contract, transaction, or relationship -ex: employment contract, sale of business restraint created protects legitimate interests such as -trade secrets-good will the restraint created is not greater than necessary to protect those interests in terms of: -time-geography (limiting to certain client base is also acceptable) -scope of activity the promise’s need for the protection given by the agreement is not outweighed by either: -the hardship to the promisor or -any likely injury to the public Gillen v Diadrill Inc. (1981) agree not to engage in any business Diadrill sells, restricted from sales territorytakes with him price lists, inventoriestrial judge gives restraint but reduces 1 year to 9 months Gillen appeal, held: enforceable b.contracts with exculpatory clauses
Background image
modern rule: a court may uphold an exculpatory clause if the contract: gives “fair notice” which requires -conscpicousness -compliance with the Express Negligence Doctrine does not involve a great disparity of bargaining powerSeigneur v. National Fitness Institute (2009) back hurts, signs contract, tears shoulder, unfair bc not allowed to be member signedheld: clause was conspicuousness and negligence doctrine test met no disparity of bargaining power in recreational context H.Unconscionable Contracts To void a contract on the basis of unconscionability, both: Procedural unconscionability and -youth -age-no sophistication -fine print-high pressure salesSubstantive unconscionability -warranty disclaimers-penalties-limitations on right to jury trial -damages Williams v. Walker-Thomas (1965) all payments applied prorate for all, will not pay off until most recent is paid offbuys a stereo that is 2x times monthly income, court says no conscionability held: remanded for findings on unconscionability
Background image
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 11 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Baker
  • The Land, emotional distress,  D

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes