Contracts Outline for Fall 2007 semester
1. What is a promise?
a. promise, n. 1. The manifestation of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified manner, conveyed in such a way that another is justified in understanding that a commitment has been made; a person’s assurance that the person will or will not do something. • A binding promise — one that the law will enforce — is the essence of a contract
2. Elements of a quasi-contract are
a. Benefit conferred upon defendant by plaintiff
b. Appreciation by defendant of such benefit
c. Acceptance and retention by defendant of such benefit under such circumstances that it would be inequitable to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof
Case: Bailey v. West:Action to recover reasonable value of services rendered in feeding, care and maintenance of horse. The Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties, Perkins, J., entered judgment for plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed and defendant cross appealed. The Supreme Court, Paolino, J., held that where plaintiff knew there was dispute as to ownership of horse when he accepted it, neither defendant nor his trainer had ever had any business transactions with plaintiff or used his farm to board horses, and defendant’s trainer told van driver, who took horse to plaintiff, that defendant would not be responsible for boarding horse on any farm, there was no intent to contract for plaintiff’s boarding horse and defendant was not liable to plaintiff for cost of maintaining horse on basis of implied contract to do so.Plaintiff’s appeal denied and dismissed, defendant’s cross appeal sustained and cause remanded for entry of judgment for defendantCase: Bolin Farms v. American Cotton Shippers Association
A number of cotton contract cases were consolidated including suit for violation of antitrust laws and a number of cases attacking enforceability of forward cotton contracts by which the farmers agreed for a stated price to sell to buyer all cotton to be harvested from designated acreage. The District Court, Edwin F. Hunter, Jr., Chief Judge, held, inter alia, that the contracts were valid and were subject to specific enforcement thereof and the antitrust action would be severed from the contract actions.II. Measuring and compensating Loss Resulting from a Breach
A. Restatement 344: Purposes of Remedies: Judicial remedies under the rules stated in this restatement serve to protect one or more of the following interests of a promise:
a. His expectation interest which is his interest in having the benefit of his bargain by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed
b. His reliance interest which is his interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract not been made, or
c. His restitution interest, which is his interest in having restored to him any benefit that he was conferred on th
value between present and promised condition, aforementioned elements were compensable on either an expectancy or reliance basis.Plaintiff’s exceptions waived; defendant’s exceptions overruled
D. Restatement 345: Judicial Remedies Available, the judicial remedies available for the protection of the interests stated in 344 include a judgment or order
a. Awarding a sum of money due under the contract or as damages,
b. Requiring a specific performance of a contract or enjoining its nonperformance
c. Requiring restoration f a specific thing to prevent unjust enrichment
d. Awarding a sum of money to prevent unjust enrichment
e. Declaring the rights of the parties, and
f. Enforcing an arbitration award.
Case: Curtice Brothers Co. v Catts
Bill by the Curtice Bros. Company against James E. Catts and others. Decree advised for complainant.Complainant is engaged in the business of canning tomatoes, and seeks the specific performance of a contract wherein defendant agreed to sell to complainant the entire product of certain land planted with tomatoes. Defendant contests the power of this court to grant equitable relief
Restatement 359: Effect of Adequacy of Damages
