Select Page

Contracts
University of Michigan School of Law
Krier, James E.

Contracts Outline
Prof. Jim Krier – Winter 2007
Frier, White: Modern Law of Contracts

I. INTRODUCTION/ROADMAP
A. Standard: K law is more like negligence than trespass = reasonableness standard not rule
B. Asymmetry: K can be enforceable against one party and not other
C. UCC: Sale of goods
D. Parol evidence rule: if K is in writing, can you introduce oral evidence to show that it shouldn’t be enforced or it should be different?
E. Default rules: general terms read into K even though not written into it
1. Mandatory rules: implied warranty of inhabitability can’t be waived
F. Unconscionability
G. Statute of Frauds: If K is really impt needs to be in writing
H. Damages: liability rule (default remedy in US)
1. In Ks, injuries are usually economic, so ct can give FMV
2. Arise ex post, but have ex ante deterrent effect
I. Specific Performance: Injunctive relief = property rule
1. Most often in real estate = unique good
2. Changing b/c condos are not unique (often won’t even sue for spec perf)
J. Strict liability: By in large, you can’t breach for any reason
K. Efficient Breach: Advance social welfare in utilitarian sense by breaching a K and selling or buying from another.
1. Not a moral jmnt
L. Output K: B buys all of S’s goods.
M. Requirements K: S supplies all of the goods that B requires.
N. Lucy v. Zehmer:
1. Objective approach: A party’s personal belief does not matter (Lucy)
a. Restatement § 20 – “reason to know the meaning attached by the other”: Can’t win based on ignorance
b. Z should have known L was serious based on L’s actions
c. If L knew it was a joke beforehand, might have different result
2. “Know” trumps “reason to know”
a. Reasonable person is someone who would draw an inference when he also has reason to believe otherwise
b. If you know something, you have reason to know it
3. Intoxication – If drunk so as to be incompetent, it matters. If you know or should have known other party is drunk, it matters
4. Why not subjective? Hard to get concrete ev…rely on testimony = lying
O. Prob 1-1: Pepsico sells Harrier jet for points. Is there an offer?
1. It was a joke on objective standard.
P. Expectation Interest: $ or object bargained for
Q.

y
a. Ks substitute for hostages or bonds: we see hostages when Ks aren’t enforceable
4. Lets us trust something – can sue if other party doesn’t perform…get something (damages)
5. Want to be able to be sued – gives credence to promise…ensures future action

II. BARGAIN THEORY

A. Consideration
1. Consideration = bargained for exchange (the other party’s promise)
a. Needs to induce the bargain
b. R2d § 71: consideration must be bargained for
i. It is sought AND given
ii. Performance may consist of an act, forbearance, creation/ modification/destruction of legal relation (Hamer and Fiege)
c. R2d § 79: if consideration is met, no add’l reqt
2. “In real world, consideration plays almost no role, and shouldn’t” – JK
3. Function of consideration: Cuts down on…
a. Fraud where there was clearly no bargain. We can better tell who is lying/making up facts
Frivolous suits