Comments on: Contracts Revue

By: Miriam Cherry

Miriam Cherry — Wed, 24 May 2006 23:22:07 +0000

You got it – for #8 (You can’t always get you want) I was looking for “substantial performance.” Even thouhg I wasn’t looking for a case there, I think that Jacobs & Young v. Kent probably fits the best.

As for “Promises, Promises” the lyrics include the following: “You made me promises, promises / that you knew you’d never keep.” That leades me to … willful breach.

And Depeche Mode “Everything Counts” – damages.

Thanks for playing everyone, it was fun!

By: tim morgan

tim morgan — Wed, 24 May 2006 02:41:13 +0000

After having read a previous post, I believe the contracts principle illustrated by Promises Promises is embodied by a latin phrase (pacta sunt servanda).. You can’t always get what you want is illustrative that a contract’s duties may be completed by substantial performance, so long as the essential aim of the contract has been achieved and a remedy may be fashioned for the defective performance…#5- Everything Counts: Who knows

By: tim morgan

tim morgan — Wed, 24 May 2006 02:32:04 +0000

#8: Jacob and Youngs v. kent: No reading pipe.. You can’t always get what you want

#5: Lucy v. Zehmer: Even a receipt from a restaurant will count as a sufficient memorialization of a contract… I think….

By: tim morgan

tim morgan — Wed, 24 May 2006 02:10:46 +0000

#3: Ricketts v. Scothorn??

#8: A case in which an offeree mistakenly manifests an acceptance to a non-offer—-

#4 Dickenson v. Dodds: Offeree learns of an act by the offeror which is inconsistent with the terms of the original offer..

#8: Raffles v. Wichelhaus (I think this is it)

By: Miriam Cherry

Miriam Cherry — Wed, 24 May 2006 00:32:39 +0000

Okay, so far we’ve got the following:

#1: Frigalment (“What is Chicken” case)

#2: Hadley v. Baxendale (case involves a broken mill shaft). As a backup answer, I liked Williams v. Walker-Thomas, because the consumers there had been shafted;

#4: Dickenson v. Dodds

#6 & 7: Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge

What we have left are #3, 5, 8.

Hint: I am not looking for specific cases for these three, which may explain why they’re a bit more difficult. I’m looking for concepts / doctrines.

Steve, your ballad is a classic! I didn’t pretend that this was the complete list… The case Howard is referring to with the brother-in-law is Kirksey v. Kirksey, but that’s not exactly what I’m looking for; Ann is really close with Hawkins v. McGee; Jeff, you have your contracts casebook in your office because contracts is the most awesome class ever.

By: Jeff Mansell

Jeff Mansell — Tue, 23 May 2006 23:14:33 +0000

#4: Dickinson v. Dodds.

Can anyone tell me why it is I have my contracts casebook in my office?

By: Jeff Mansell

Jeff Mansell — Tue, 23 May 2006 23:03:22 +0000

Does #4 have to do with an offeree’s knowledge of an offeror’s conduct inconsistent with the offer?

I recall that revocation of an offer is possible through a statement made to the offeree, or through conduct if the offeree is aware of the conduct. If the offeree hears about the offeror, say, selling the property in question to a third party, then there is a revocation of the offer if the offeree heard the news from a reliable source. Hence, depending upon the grapevine through which one heard the news, there might be a revocation.

I type too much.

By: Ann Bartow

Ann Bartow — Tue, 23 May 2006 16:07:16 +0000

#8 Hawkins v. McGee

http://www.4lawschool.com/contracts/mcgee.shtml

By: Howard Wasserman

Howard Wasserman — Tue, 23 May 2006 15:44:21 +0000

I remember nothing from contracts and thus no case names, but only descriptions: But, how about:

# 2 for Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture

# 3 for the case where the brother-in-law promised the widow she could live on his property, then kicked her out.

By: Steve Vladeck

Steve Vladeck — Tue, 23 May 2006 04:29:11 +0000

Miriam — What about the Ballad of George and Lucille, which is more specificly tied to Peevyhouse? That was an integral part of my 1L contracts class…

By: contracts-rusty 2L

contracts-rusty 2L — Tue, 23 May 2006 02:54:17 +0000

# 8 –> Jacob & Young v. Kent ?????

By: Miriam Cherry

Miriam Cherry — Tue, 23 May 2006 01:06:31 +0000

Some of these are more than a case. #8 is broader than Peeveyhouse (although you’re on the right track). Still open: #3,4,5, & 8.

By: Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman — Tue, 23 May 2006 00:16:50 +0000

I don’t pay close attention to the listserve, so I’ll play. 6&7 are Luten Bridge. I’m guessing Peevyhouse for #8, am not entirely sure. And I can’t believe you illustrate Hadley with Shaft (#2).

By: Joe Patent

Joe Patent — Mon, 22 May 2006 23:25:38 +0000

1) Frigalment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int’l Sales Corp. (Judge Friendly)