Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Contracts Reading Assignments
Topic Started: Sep 5 2008, 11:13 PM (31 Views)
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

Assignment 5: Objective theory, cont.
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
Quote Post Goto Top Offline Profile
« Previous Topic · Contracts · Next Topic »
Add Reply