CREATING CONTRACTS
Obj theory of assent
Cant be secret intentions…look at manner of parties
Both parties don’t have to intend for there to be a K; rather a reas man must have right to and did understand there to be a K
Lucy v Zehmer
Embry v Hargadine
R19
Offer
No offer if just an invitation to trade…look at
-past communications
-usages of trade
-To whom words are addressed (to several people à offeree huld know offeror cant sell to everyone unless it is made clear he could perform)
Nebraska Seed v Harsh
R26; R24 (defines offer)
No offer if: precon negot don’t amount to an intent to be bound (i.e. staing that things are “subject to”)
Empro Manufacturing v Ball-Co
R26
Promise to keep offer open is revocable if there is lack of consideration; you can revoke before acceptance, then no acceptance
Dickinson v Dodds
R36
BUT consideration not required to keep option open
-if merchant dealing in profession
-signed writing
-gives explicit assurance that offer will be held open
Acceptance
Default: Mailbox Rule
R63
Acceptance must be properly dispatched – must address it right and put postage – this is offeree’s problem if he doesn’t do this
R66
BUT if option K – acceptance not valud until received; Any mistakes in offer is offeror’s problem
Mirror Image Rule: If A offers B and B counteroffers…becomes new offer (R61) but if part perf..hard for A to say varied terms are a problem (R45)
R61 and R45
BUT…UCC is diff: if acceptance contains additional terms à still acceptance à additional terms are proposals for addition to the K; new terms become party of K UNLESS materially alters, offer expressly limits acceptance to terms of offer; notification of objection to them has already been given
Accept by Perf
If terms make it so that perf accepts, then unilateral à acceptance (no notification necessary)…makes it clear that offeror is capable of fulfilling its duties
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Co
R54
Revoke offer to be accepted by perf by publication equal to publication of offer
R46
If bilateral K, no acceptance by perf à if you specify that acceptance by agreement; not perf à no accept by perf
White v Corlies & Tifft
Accept by Silence
Silence and retainment for unreas amt of time = acceptance; duty to speak up b/c they had a past relationship
Hobbs v Massoit Whip Co
R69
CONSIDERATION
Gifts
If gift à still has to be consideration
Johnson v Otterbein Univ
R24
But if gift given, there can still be consideration…consideration is either benefit to promisor or forbearance of a legal right to that party’s detriment
Hamer v Sidway
R71
Past/Moral Consid
Past consid doesn’t count if something done before deal was made
Moore v Elmer
If benefit conferred on someone you are not legally resp
t)
FIDC v Barness
Lack of Intent to be Bound
If disclaimer not to be bound clearly and conspicuously displayed à no K
Ferrera v Nelson; Evenson v Colorado Farm Bureau (not displayed prominently enuf); Eiland v Wolf (not displayed prom enuf)
R21
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
SWORD to enforce w/o consid (exp here)
Expected and actual detrimental reliance
Rickets v Scothorn (family); Greiner v Greiner (land); Feinberg v Pfeifer (pension)
R90
If no detrimental reliance, then no PE (but look for consideration instead….they found it here)
Alleghany College v Natl Chautauqua Cnty Bank
Promisee’s reliance has to be reasonable
James Baird v Gimel Bros (not reas here);
Drennan v Star Paving (not totally out of whack here)
R87
SHIELD (rel only; as alt to breach
Justice and fair dealing require that if you lead someone else to do something that they otherwise would not have done, such person should not be subject to such loss or injury à reliance
Goodman v Dicker; Hoffman v Red Owl (not lying the whole time…so don’t recover for everything
If it wasn’t to your detriment, you don’t get PE
Blatt v USC