| Contracts Reading Assignments | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 5 2008, 11:13 PM (31 Views) | |
| Post #1 Sep 5 2008, 11:13 PM | Mike |
|
I. INTRODUCTION Assignment 1: The Study of Contract Law Contracting Law 3-23 Note—On the History of Contract Law H.J. Coolidge v. Pua'aiki and Kea Note—Anatomy of a Judicial Decision Assignment 2: Three Principles of Contract Law: Bargain Contracting La w 24-37 Kirksey v. Kirksey 0. Henry (William Sydney Porter), The Gift of the Magi John Elemans, The Gift Economy Note— On Markets and Market Ideologies Bargain and the Market Note —Neo-Classical Economics and Contract Law Assignment 3: Three Principles of Contract Law: Reliance, Restitution Contracting Law 37-46, 51-61 Laurie Kuribayashi, Freeway Poem Andrew Ricketts v. Katie Scothorn Alasdair Maclntyre, A Disquieting Suggestion Bailey v. West Lyle Dews v. Halliburton Industries, Inc. II. BARGAIN CONTRACT FORMATION: AGREEMENT + CONSIDERATION A. AGREEMENT =MUTUAL ASSENT USUALLY = OFFER + ACCEPTANCE 1) A PRELIMINARY MATTER -- THE OBJECTIVE THEORY OF INTERPRETATION AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING DOCTRINE Assignment 4: The Objective Theory of Interpretation Contracting La w 63-75 Charles R. Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Company Arthur Miller, The Death of a Salesman United Steelworkers of America, Local 1330 v. United States Steel Sue Doro, Blue Collar Goodbyes Required Written Exercise 1 : Write a case brief for United Steelworkers of America, Local 1330 v. United States Steel and bring it with you to class Contracting Law 75-91 In the Matter of the Estate of Virgil A. Steffes On Formation and Interpretation: Informal Contracts and the Objective Theory Patricia J. W illiams, Alchemical Notes: Reconstructing Ideals from Deconstructed Rights Assignment 6: An Alternative Approach to Interpretation: The Doctrine of Misunderstanding Contracting Law 91-103 Konic International Corporation v. Spokane Computer Services, Inc. Abbott & Costello, Who=s on First? Herlinda Marie Acedo v. State of Arizona, Department of Public Welfare On Revocation of Consent to Adoption Assignment 7: An Alternative Approach to Interpretation: The Doctrine of Misunderstanding Contracting Law 103-107 Izaldi v. Machado Ford Required Written Exercise 2: Student Workbook - Please use the chart entitled Case Grid: Misunderstanding to compare the three misunderstanding cases we have read and bring your written analysis to class 2) AGREEMENT =MUTUAL ASSENT USUALLY = OFFER + ACCEPTANCE a)OFFER Assignment 8: Offer and Acceptance - The Model Contracting Law 107-119 On the Polarity of the Offer-Acceptance Model Normile v. Miller J. W. Southworth v. Joseph C. Oliver and Arlene G. Oliver Required Written Exercise 3: Student Workbook - Please use the chart Doctrinal Analysis: What is the AOffer@ (if any) in Southworth v. Oliver? to analyze the differing characterizations of the communications in Southworth (the fact diagram in the Workbook may be of help in keeping track of the various communications) and bring your written analysis to class. Assignment 9: Was there an Offer? Cont. Contracting Law 119-130 John Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. On Interpretation and Context b) ACCEPTANCE Assignment 10: Offer and Acceptance - Acceptance, Manner of Acceptance Contracting Law 130-138 Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Nowlin Smith, Jr. The Manner of Acceptance Beard Implement Co. v. Krusa Assignment 11: Manner of Acceptance, cont. -- Acceptance by Silence and by Silent Use, Acceptance by Full Performance Contracting Law 138-143 Theodore B. Russell v. Texas Co. Harms v. Northland Ford Dealers Assignment 12: Acceptance, Content of the Acceptance: Mirror Image Rule, Judicial Limitations, UCC 2-207 Contracting Law 143-149 Flender Corp. v. Tippins International Handout on Content of Acceptance Handout of Hypotheticals on Content of Acceptance Assignment 13: Acceptance, UCC Formation Provisions, cont.: boxtops, slickwrap, click-wrap, etc. Contracting Law 149-164 Step-Saver Data S ystems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology and the Software Link, Inc. Klocek v. Gateway, Inc. Handout on Revisions to UCC 2-207 c) Revocation of an Offer Assignment 14: Revoking an Offer Contracting Law 164-171 Dickinson v. Dodds Washington v. Wheeler On Revocation of Offers Assignment 15: Revoking, cont.: “irrevocable offers” and other “problems” Contracting Law 171-176 On Aoffers becoming irrevocable,@ Airrevocable offers,@ and Acontracts,@including Aoption contracts@ Restatement 2d, Section 87(1) UCC 2-205 : firm offers Karl Llewellyn, Our Case-Law of Contract: Offer and Acceptance Drennen v. Star Paving Company Restatement, 2d Section 87(2) 3) Additional Rules and Ideas Regarding Mutual Assent Assignment 16: Complicating Assent: AIndefinite@ Agreements Contracting Law 176-191 George A. Varney v. Isaac E. Ditmars Cobble Hill Nursing Home, Inc. v. Henry and Warren Corp. Mary Gordon, Final Payments Oglebay Norton Co. v. Armco, Inc. B. COMMITMENT = ENFORCEABLE PROMISE OR PERFORMANCE = ACONSIDERATION@ Note B It is sometimes said that contract law recognizes various Areasons to enforce@ a promise and these are sometimes called Abases for liability.@ Generally these reasons or bases include Consideration and the Two Alternatives: Recognition of a Past Benefit and Reliance Recall – as we discussed in the first weeks of the semester: the most frequent form of enforceable promise is a contract or bargain, in which there must be: (1) Mutual assent -- i.e. an offer and an acceptance, and (2) Consideration -- i.e. some bargained for return promise or performance. However, a promise can be enforceable even if it is not part of a contract or bargain if it was reasonably relied upon or if it was made in recognition of a past benefit. And, the requirement of Mutual Assent applies only to promises that are enforced for the reason that they were given in exchange for a Abargained for@ consideration. Theoretically, the Doctrine of Mutual Assent does not apply to promises that are enforced because they were relied upon or because they were made in recognition of a past benefit. In those cases, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a promise, but the plaintiff does not have to prove that there was an offer and an acceptance. 1) THE CONSIDERATION DOCTRINE Assignment 17: Consideration: AA Return Promise or Performance@ Contracting Law (Review 24-37) 209-226 Origins of the Consideration Doctrine Hamer v. Sidway Consideration and the Market Myrna Greenfield, Alternative Trade: Giving Coffee a New Flavor Assignment 18: Consideration Doctrine cont. APre-Existing Duty Rule” & “Illusory Promises” Contracting Law 226-238 Angela White v. Village of Homewood Today Profile: Engine Company Number Three, all-women firefighting crew Work through the Restatement comments and illustrations on pages 232-234 Agnes Maszewski v. John Piskadlo John Prine, Hello in There Assignment 19: A...That is Bargained-For@ & “Nominal Consideration” Contracting Law 251-259 Langer v. Superior Steel Corp. In Re Greene III. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDERATION ...... WHICH ALSO ARE OR CAN BE ALTERNATIVES TO OFFER-ACCEPTANCE MODEL OF MUTUAL ASSENT.... ? A. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL: ANOTHER BASIS FOR ENFORCEMENT The doctrine allowing enforcement of promises that were reasonably relied upon -- the doctrine stated in Section 90 of the Restatement, Second -- is very well established and widely embraced by courts in Texas and elsewhere. 1) THE INNOVATION? REVIVAL? OF APROTECTING RELIANCE@ ADETRIMENTAL RELIANCE@ APROMISSORY ESTOPPEL@ - THE PROMISE Assignment 20: Protecting Those Who Trust ... Reliance -- The Promise Contracting Law (Review 37-43), 271-273, 278-288, 291-297 Restatement, 2d Section 90(1), with comments and illustration Bank of Standish v. Curry Joseph Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 2) What is the Reliance, and the Injustice? Assignment 21: What is the Reliance, and the Injustice? Contracting Law 320-330 Restatement, 2d of Contracts, Section 90(2) (Charitable Contributions) Jo Laverne Alden v. Elvis Presley Elvis Presley & Vera Matson, Love Me Tender Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines B. APAST CONSIDERATION@ -- PROMISES MADE IN RECOGNITION OF A PAST BENEFIT -- AN ALTERNATIVE TO ABARGAINED FOR@ CONSIDERATION? 1) THE RULE OF PAST CONSIDERATION AND THE LIMITED TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF AMORAL CONSIDERATION@ 2) THE INNOVATION OF WEBB V.MCGOWIN &RESTATEMENT (SECOND) §86: : PROMISE MADE IN RECOGNITION OF A PAST BENEFIT The doctrine allowing enforcement of a promise that was made in recognition of a past benefit even though it was not given in exchange for Abargained for@ consideration is relatively new and still not widely known or adopted by courts in Texas and most other states. Yet it is persuasive to most lawyers and judges who examine it closely….. Assignments 22: The “Rule Against Past Consideration,@ The Limited Doctrine of AMoral Consideration,@ Webb v. McGowin, and Restatement (Second) of Contracts §86 Contracting Law 330-343 Mills v. Wyman As you read and analyze Mills, please pay careful attention to the limited doctrine of Amoral consideration discussed by the court on page 331-332. Webb v. McGowin Harrington v. Taylor Note that Harrington was decided after Webb, but in a different state, and that Harrington=s lawyer apparently did not include an argument based on Webb... if you had been Harrington=s lawyer, how could you have made that argument under Webb? If you had been Taylor=s lawyer, how could you have responded to that argument? Realty Assos. of Ceduna v. Valley National Bank of Arizona IV. Review: : Bargain Contract, Promise Relied Upon, Promise Made in Recognition of a Past Benefit, Restitution Assignment 23: Three Bases for Liability in Contract Law, Plus One Cousin Review your Outline, (Review Contracting Law 43-46, 51-61) Required Written Exercise 4 – Turn in a Copy of your Outline. Edited by Mike, Sep 5 2008, 11:13 PM.
|
Administrator
|
|
![]() |
| « Previous Topic · Contracts · Next Topic » |





3:36 AM Jul 11