Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials
- Knapp, Crystal, Prince
- 5th Edition
- ISBN: 0735527148
| Page | Case Name | Citation | Court | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | Hamer v. Sidway | 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 | Court of Appeals of New York, 1891 |  Download |
| 59 | Batsakis v. Demotsis | 226 S.W.2d 673 | Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1949 | Download |
| 74 | Kirksey v. Kirksey | 8 Ala. 131 | Supreme Court of Alabama, 1845 | Download |
| 86 | Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank | 246 N.Y. 369, 159 N.E. 173 | Court of Appeals of New York, 1927 | Download |
| 146 | Mills v. Wyman | 3 Pick. 207 | Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1825 | Download |
| 151 | Webb v. McGowin | 27 Ala.App. 82, 168 So.196 | Court of Appeals of Alabama, 1935 | Download |
| 179 | Petterson v. Pattberg | 248 N.Y. 86, 161 N.E. 428 | Court of Appeals of New York, 1928 | Download |
| 190 | James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros. | 64 F.2d 344 | United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1933 | Download |
| 193 | Drennan v. Star Paving Co. | 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 | Supreme Court of California, 1958 | Download |
| 535 | Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist. | 246 Cal.App.2d 123, 54 Cal.Rptr. 533 | California District Court of Appeal, 1966 | Download |
| 566 | Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. | 350 F.2d 445 | United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1965 | Download |
| 681 | Alaska Packers' Ass'n v. Domenico | 117 F. 99 | United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1902 | Download |
| 727 | Herzog v. Irace | 594 A.2d 1106 | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1991 | |
| 745 | Jacob & Youngs v. Kent | 230 N.Y. 239 | Court of Appeals of New York, 1921 | Download |
| 831 | Hadley v. Baxendale | 9 Exch. 341. | Court of Exchequer, 1854. | Download |
| 848 | Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. | 35 F.2d 301. | United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1929. | Download |
| 989 | Wasserman's Inc. v. Township of Middletown | 645 A.2d 100 | Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1994 | Download |
| Case Information | Fact Summary | Rule of Law |
|---|---|---|
|
Hamer v. Sidway Court of Appeals of New York, 1891 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 Pg. 42 |
A boy's uncle promised him $5,000 if he would refrain from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he became twenty-one years of age. | "Consideration means not so much that one party is profiting as that the other abandons some legal right in the present or limits his legal freedom of action in the future as an inducement for the promise of the first." |
|
Batsakis v. Demotsis Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1949 226 S.W.2d 673 Pg. 59 |
During WWII, the plaintiff gave the defendant what amounted to a loan of $25, so that defendant could return to the United States. In return, the defendant agreed to pay defendant $2,000 plus interest. | A bargained for exchange does not require equal value to constitute consideration. |
|
Kirksey v. Kirksey Supreme Court of Alabama, 1845 8 Ala. 131 Pg. 74 |
A brother (defendant) asked his sister (plaintiff) to come and live with him, promising her a place to live and to help provide for her and her children. The brother gave his sister a place to live in the woods and then kicked her out after two years. | A promise that is a mere gratuity does not constitute consideration. |
|
Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank Court of Appeals of New York, 1927 246 N.Y. 369, 159 N.E. 173 Pg. 86 |
Mary Yates Johnston pledged $5,000 to Allegheny College for the establishment of a Mary Yates Johnston scholarship. The donation was to be paid after Mary Yates passed away. She paid $1,000 prior to her death. She later gave notice the college that she repudiated her promise. 30 days after her death the college brought suit against her estate. | Where there is a benefit conferred in a charitable subscription case, there is consideration. |
|
Mills v. Wyman Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1825 3 Pick. 207 Pg. 146 |
The Defendant's 25-year old son was returning home from a voyage over seas, when he fell ill. He was poor and in distress. The Plaintiff took him in and provided shelter and other care until the son died. A few days later, and after the Plaintiff had occurred the costs of caring for the son, the Defendant wrote the Plaintiff and promised to pay him for the expenses incurred. Subsequently, the Defendant decided not to pay and the Plaintiff brought this action. | Moral "consideration" alone is not consideration. The moral benefit the father received is insufficient to bind his promise. The benefit the father received is intangible and unquantifiable. |
|
Webb v. McGowin Court of Appeals of Alabama, 1935 27 Ala.App. 82, 168 So.196 Pg. 151 |
Plaintiff was working for a lumber company clearing an upper-level floor by throwing 75 lb. pine blocks to the ground floor. As he was throwing a pine block, defendant came into sight and plaintiff acted to save the life of defendant by falling with the pine block to the floor below, saving the life of defendant and crippling the plaintiff for life. Defendant agreed to care for plaintiff for the rest of his life and pay him $15 every two weeks. | A promise based on a prior material benefit conferred is enforceable. |
|
Petterson v. Pattberg Court of Appeals of New York, 1928 248 N.Y. 86, 161 N.E. 428 Pg. 179 |
Defendant made an offer to plaintiff that he would relieve the plaintiff of his mortgage at a discount rate if the plaintiff would pay the discounted amount by a certain date. Plaintiff responded to the offer by going to defendant's house to pay the discounted amount. When plaintiff arrived, the defendant informed him that he had sold his mortgage to someone else. | The offer of the defendant was withdrawn before it became a binding promise. Thus, the contract is void. |
|
James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1933 64 F.2d 344 Pg. 190 |
Defendant sent out offer to several contractors to supply linoleum for a construction project. A few days afterward, the defendant realized it had made a mistake on the specifications of the contract and withdrew its offer. The plaintiff, however, had already sent in a bid on the contract. Plaintiff's bid was accepted, but defendant declined to recognize the existence of a contract. | Defendant withdrew the offer before the plaintiff had accepted. Thus, the defendant legally withdrew from the contract. The plaintiff could also not recover under promissory estoppel, because the contract lacked consideration. |
|
Drennan v. Star Paving Co. Supreme Court of California, 1958 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 Pg. 193 |
Contractor received a bid from a sub-contractor to complete a construction job. Contractor used the sub-contractor's bid in formulating his own bid for the project. Contractor was awarded the project. After being awarded the project, the sub-contractor came to contractor and let the contractor know that it could no longer complete the job for what it had said that it could. As a result, contractor was forced to find another sub-contractor to do the job at a higher price. | The contractor justifiably relied on the sub-contractor's promise to the contractor's detriment. Thus, the sub-contractor is responsible for the loss. |
|
Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist. California District Court of Appeal, 1966 246 Cal.App.2d 123, 54 Cal.Rptr. 533 Pg. 535 |
Plaintiff, a school teacher, was arrested for homosexuality and subsequently resigned. He alleged that he was coerced into resigned by the high school principal and superintendent of schools. He sought to rescind his resignation on the grounds that it was made under duress, menace, fraud, mistake, and undue influence. | "To make a good contract a man must be a free agent. Pressure of whatever sort which overpowers the will without convincing the judgment is a species of restraint under which no valid contract can be made. Importunity or threats, if carried to the degree in which the free play of a man's will is overborne, constitute undue influence, although no force is used or threatened. A party may be led but not driven, and his acts must be the offspring of his own volition and not the record of someone else's." |
|
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1965 350 F.2d 445 Pg. 566 |
Plaintiff purchases furniture from Defendant on credit. Each payment that Plaintiff makes is spread out across all of the items that Plaintiff has purchased. Plaintiff does not receive title to any one item until Plaintiff has paid enough to cover the balance for all of the items. When Plaintiff defaults, Defendant seeks to recover all of the items. After a judgment for the Defendant, the case is remanded so that the trial court can consider whether the agreement was unconscionable. | Unconscionability consists of two elements: 1) procedural - absence of meaningful choice; and 2) substantive - the terms are unfair, unreasonably favorable to one party, with fairness assessed at the time of transaction. |
|
Alaska Packers' Ass'n v. Domenico United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1902 117 F. 99 Pg. 681 |
Sailors and fisherman agreed to work for the defendant on his ship in Alaska. While the ship was out to sea, the workers threatened to quit if they did not receive a raise. The defendant agreed to the raise, but when they returned from fishing, he refused to pay the additional wages. | " . . . [W]hen a party merely does what he has already obligated himself to do, he cannot demand an additional compensation therefor; and although, by taking advantage of the necessities of his adversary, he obtains a promise for more, the law will regard it as nudum pactum, and will not lend its process to aid in the wrong." The court held that there was no consideration for the additional promise. |
|
Herzog v. Irace Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1991 594 A.2d 1106 Pg. 727 |
Gary Jones was injured in a motorcycle accident and retained Irace and Lowry to represent him in a personal injury action. Subsequent to the motorcycle accdident, Jones dislocated his should and needed surgery to repair it. He didn't have the cash to get the surgery, so he assigned the proceeds of a settlement from his first accident to the doctor that performed the surgery. | "In Maine, the transfer of a future right to proceeds from pending litigation has been recognized as a valid and enforceable equitable assignment. . . . An equitable assignment need not transfer the entire future right but rather may be a partial assignment of that right." |
|
Jacob & Youngs v. Kent Court of Appeals of New York, 1921 230 N.Y. 239 Pg. 745 |
Plaintiff built a house for Defendant. The construction contract specified that Plaintiff use a certain kind of pipe. Plaintiff used a different brand of pipe, but the pipe was of the same quality. Defendant refuses to pay a portion of the contract price on account of Plaintiff's breach. | This case demonstrates substantial performance. Substantial performance occurs when the contract was not performed exactly, but was performed to the extent that the difference in the end result is insubstantial. Where there is substantial performance the harmed party may not recover the cost of completion, but rather the difference in market value |
|
Hadley v. Baxendale Court of Exchequer, 1854. 9 Exch. 341. Pg. 831 |
The plaintiffs were millers who sued the defendant, a firm of carriers, for their failure within the time promised to deliver a broken mill shaft to the manufacturer. | Damages should be those that arise from breach, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been made in contemplation of both parties. In the case of special circumstances, the defendant may be liable for damages arising from the breach if the special circumstances have been communicated. |
|
Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1929. 35 F.2d 301. Pg. 848 |
The plaintiff entered into a contract with the county board to build a bridge. Subsequent to awarding the contract, the county board reconstituted and submitted a resolution telling the plaintiff to stop working. The plaintiff finished the bridge. | A plaintiff who receives notice of breach has a duty to mitigate damages. |
|
Wasserman's Inc. v. Township of Middletown Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1994 645 A.2d 100 Pg. 989 |
Plaintiff enters a lease with Defendant. Plaintiff leases the property to operate a business. The lease contains a liquidated damages clause. The clause states that in the event of a breach by Defendant, the Defendant must pay the Plaintiff 25% of Plaintiff's annual gross receipts (based on a three-year average). The Defendant breached, but refused to pay the liquidated damages. | The court reviews the clause under a reasonableness standard. To be enforceable the clause must be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The clause fails that tests, and therefore is classified as a penalty clause (unenforceable) as opposed to a liquidated damages clause (enforceable). The amount awarded is grossly disproportionate to the annual profit. Damages based on gross receipts fails the reasonableness test. |
© 2010 Courtroom Connect, Inc. All rights reserved.