contractsmerges99.docBerkeley Law

1、contractsi. has a valid k been formed?1. mutual assent rule: must have offer and acceptance. defined if other person is justified in believing that his assent to that bargain is invited and, if given, will result in a binding k between the parties.a. offer: 1. standard elements:rule 1: to manifest o

2、ffer, must:a. intent: manifest present k intent;b. unqualified: certainty and definiteness of terms; andc. communication: communication to offerreerule 2: words must be words of offer rather than words of preliminary negotiation. courts reject subjective interp of this provision. must be objectively

3、 clear to the reasonable person that if they accepted, it would form a k.rule 3: following factors are helpful in determining objective intent:1. words used2. surrounding circumstances3. to whom proposal is made (large group or small, select)4. definiteness and certainty of terms5. written k contemp

4、lated (if refers to written agreement, probably not)2. testimony of belief permitted: (subjective)kabil developments corp. v. mignot (helicopters promised):a. rule: although only objective proof will give enforcement to k, a jury may be allowed to hear subjective testimony to try to give credence to

5、 that objective proof.b. case: jury felt compelled that testimony of owner of biz was indicative of objective proof that k existed.3. objective theory and employee handbooks:mcdonald v. mobil coal producing, inc. (employee handbook): a. rule 1: employee handbook = sufficient k when it appears to be

6、in regards to a certain procedure of employ. rule 2: employee handbooks are not sufficient ks and this is stated in the disclaimer.b. case: court found handbook to be sufficient k regarding practices emplolyed surrounding employees termination.c. policy: dissent points out the danger of ignoring the

7、se disclaimers, especially when they are so clear.4. requirement of definite terms in the offer:moulton v. kershaw (salt dealer): a. rule 1: to be considered a k, a document must have definite terms of offer.rule 2: ads generally dont bind parties.b. case: more like an ad. just said that certain goo

8、ds are available for sale at a specified price. does not constitute an offer.b. requirement of definiteness and certainty of terms:a. standard elements:rule 1: terms in a k must be sufficiently clear and complete so that the court can determine what the parties were intending. essential terms are:qt

9、ips:1. quantity2. time3. identity of parties4. price5. subject matterrule 2: implication of reasonable terms:1. courts will imply terms where reasonable, but will not “remake” the k where terms have been dealt with inadequately.2. price: if ommitted completely, will add in at fair market value. if d

10、ealt with incompletely or inadequately, it will not add in.3. time for performance: will imply a reasonable time from date of acceptance.4. parties, subject matter and quantity cannot be reasonably inferred by the court.5. agreements to agree: will not enforce unless agreement takes placeb. ucc 2-20

11、4: formation in general:1. made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct2. k sufficient even though moment of making is undetermined3. even if one or more terms is indefinite, if parties intended and remedy is reasonably certain, will be enforceable.*per legal lines: 1. price om

12、itted = market value at time of delivery; 2. place omitted = sellers place of biz; 3. time for shipment omitted = reasonable time after contracting; 4. time of payment omitted due at time of delivery.c. examples of adequate k formation: (p.347)1. selling of fur coats advertized in paper (by conduct

13、contract was formed)2. alligator handbag (by accepting offer, k was formed)3. placing box of sugar in shopping basket = k formationd. application to lease agreement:joseph martin, jr. delicatessen v. schumacher (rent agreement): 1. rule 1: agreements to agree are not per se enforceable unless the ag

14、reement takes place.rule 2: per food co. case, “ill perform if i want to” is not consideration.2. case: agreement to renew based on agreed upon rent not enforceable since it was only workable if the parties could agree.3. ucc 2-204: agreement to agree is not enforceable. unfortunately, not used in r

15、eal estate ks.e. letter of intent:empro mfg. co. v. ball-co mfg., inc. (purchase agreement):1. rule: letters of intent are common ways for parties to approach agreement in stages without fearing that preliminary understandings may bind them to specifics.2. case: letter sent to seller included severa

16、l “subject to” provisions which made the letter unenforceable as a k.3. rstmt 33: certainty:1. doc cannot be accepted as k unless terms of k are certain2. terms of k are reasonably certain if provide basis for determining existence of breach and for giving appropriate remedy.3. fact that one or more

17、 terms of a bargain are left open or uncertain may show that manifestation of intent is not intended to be understood as an offer or an acceptance.f. ambiguities: raffles v. wichelhaus (s.s. peerless):1. rule 1: when both parties area unaware of the ambiguity, and if both interps are reasonable, the

18、re will be a binding k only if both parties in fact attach the same meaning to the ambiguous words.2. case: there was no k b/c there was no meeting of the minds.3. rule 2: when both parties are aware, there will be a k only if both parties attach same meaning to ambiguous word.rule 3: when only one

19、party knows, and the other does not know, there is a binding k only based on what the innocent party in fact intended.4. rstmt 20: effect of misunderstandingrules 1-3 codifiedc. offeror largely controls k formation:1. offeror may establish time limit for acceptance of offercobaugh v. klick-lewis, in

20、c. (golf prize):a. rule 1: when no time-limit is specified, offer remains open indefinitelyrule 2: time limit runs from receipt by offeree. however, if delay is known by offeree, period begins to run from date he wouldve received it.however, offeror can revoke at any time before expiration.b. case:

21、had to give p the car b/c the offer remained open due to ds carelessness. fortunately for company, they protected themselves from infinite liability by using term “this car.”c. notes: 1. must have knowledge of offer though. no knowledge = no performance required (ex: public disclosure of information

22、)2. offers typically run from the postmark date if an amount of time is specified.2. offeror may control mode of acceptancedavis v. jacoby (mrs. whitehead):a. rule: if difficult to determine if k is unilateral or bilateral, presumption in favor of bilateral ksb. case: whiteheads letter was offer and

23、 reply was acceptance. this is supported by the fact that he wanted to know his wife would be taken care of following his death.c. university patents v. kligman (skin treatment): 1. rule: for a handbook to work as a k, must have offer and acceptance with notified specificity. 2. case: wasnt offered

24、handbook in exchange for his employment. he had worked for univ for a while and this changed his status to tenured position. also, he never signed a form since he started work before handbook came out. also, policy handbook not upheld as a genuine form of k.3. offerors power to revoke:rstmt 36: meth

25、ods of termination of the power of acceptance: offerees power of acceptance may be terminated bya. revocation by offeror (complicated w/unilats), orb. rejection or counter-offer by offeree, orc. lapse of time, ord. death or incapacity of offeror or offereea. part (a) rule: rejection by offeror and p

26、artial performance:1. rule (rejection prior to acceptance) offeror can revoke prior to acceptance even if offer is “good for” specified amount of time, except with options.2. part performance exception: revocation of offer for unilateral k after part perform.a. normally, a unilateral offer may be re

27、voked at any time prior to the requested act. but, what if the act takes a period of time to perform and has been partly performed when the revocation is issued?b. old rule: offer of unilat k may be revoked at any time prior to performance, even if there has been substantial part performance rendere

28、d by offeree.c. modern rule:where offeree has rendered substantial part performance, courts now will not permit revocation of the unilateral offer by the offeror.1. justifications:a. ipso facto: once performance begins, it becomes a bilateral kb. equitable estoppel: not fair to force him to stop aft

29、er he began2. ucca. offer to buy goods invites acceptance by either actual shipment or promise to ship.b. if beginning requested performance is reasonable means of acceptance, offerees doing so binds the offeror “within a reasonable time” by notice of acceptance.c. examplebrackenbury v. hodgkin (mot

30、hers house):1. rule: where the offer calls for an act as acceptance and the offeree makes a substantial beginning of performance, a k is formed.2. case: mother promised to transfer deed of house to children if they came to take care of her. different from davis b/c focuses on need of actual care rat

31、her than the promise to do so.d. rstmt 45: option k created by part performance1. offer invites offeree to accept by rendering a performance and does not invite promissory acceptance, option k created when the offeree tenders or begins the invited performance.2. offerors duty of performance under op

32、tion k is conditional on completion of the invited performance in accordance with the terms of the offer.d. acceptance:1. standard elements:rule 1: (intent) acceptance = voluntary act by the person to whom an offer is made, by which such person (offeree) exercises the power to create a k conferred u

33、pon him by the offeror.rule 2: (unqualified) acceptance must be definite and certain: unequivocal and unqualified.rule 3: (authority) offer may be accepted by only the person to whom it is made.rule 4: proper form: unilateral = action; bilateral = promise and communication to offeror.2. acceptance o

34、f unilateral/bilateral ks:unilateral k:a. rule 1: only accepted by doing act requested with knowledge of the offer and with subsequent intent to accept it. rule 2: if offer calls for act, cannot accept with a mere promise to act.rule 3: knowledge of offer is necessary exception: rewards for turning

35、in criminals do not have to be knownrule 4: notice to offeror not typically requiredexceptions:1. offeror requests notification2. offeror has no way of ascertaining whether act has been performed3. where offeror is to perform the actbilateral k: a. rule 1: accepted by mere giving of a counterpromise

36、rule 2: accepted when properly dispatched by an authorized means of communication. (“mailbox rule”)specifications:1. proper dispatch (envelope, address, etc.)2. authorized means: fairly lenient, but risk of loss shifts to offeror3. c/l: if offeror specifies particular means, have to use it or else i

37、t is a counteroffer.rule 3: rare cases where silence may stand as acceptance:1. “implied in fact” k = use of goods that imply acceptance of k2. understanding of the parties: if offeree knows silence will indicate assent and he remains silent, = k3. course of dealings: if reasonable that offeree will

38、 have to notify offeror of desire not to have k, = k4. offeree solicited offer: if he wanted it, = k5. inconsistent act: ?b. rstmt 63: time when acceptance takes effect:unless offer says otherwise,a. acceptance is operative and completes mutual assent as soon as put out of offerees possession, even

39、if it never reaches offeror.b. acceptance under an option k is not operative until reached by offeror.e. reinforcing offers through options and reliance (“precontractual obligation”)1. revocability of “firm offers”:a. even a firm offer can be revoked prior to a certain set date if it has not yet bee

40、n accepted by the offeree.2. promissory estoppel detrimental reliance on a promise:drennan v. star paving co. (construction bid):a. rule 1: detrimental reliance on offer for a time will make offer an option k and will estop offeror from revoking offer at least for a reasonable period of time.case ol

41、d rule: no liability for subcontractor withdrawalcase modern rule: liability for subcontractor withdrawal where reliance is foreseeable and reasonable.b. case: contractor relied on bid from sub-contractor and used it to his detriment.3. reliance on negotiations:hoffman v. red owl stores, inc. (negot

42、iation stores):a. rule 1: where one party relies to his detriment on a promise made by another party, and such detrimental reliance is foreseeable to that party, the other party can recover damages.rule 2: required elements are promise, substantial reliance, detriment, injustice unless damages are a

43、warded, and foreseeability of reliance by p.b. case: extends beyond offer-acceptance b/c no real offer. parties were still in the process of negotiations.f. conduct concluding a bargain (qualified vs. unqualified acceptances)1. counteroffers:livingstone v. evans (land sale):a. rule 1: counteroffer w

44、orks as rejection of the offer and therefore terminates it. (rstmt 59)rule 2: if acceptance injects any term or condition which was not part of the offer, this is considered “qualified” except one that was implicit in original offer. but, if acceptance is not contingent upon acceptance of these new

45、terms, will qualify as an acceptance minus the new terms.b. case: ps counteroffer terminated original offer until d wrote back and impliedly kept offer open by saying “cannot reduce price.”2. ucc 2-207: additional terms in acceptance or confirmation:1. definite and appropriate expression of acceptan

46、ce sent w/in reasonable time operates as acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.2. additional terms to be construed as proposals for additions

47、to k. between merchants, new terms become part of k unless:a. original offer limits to terms of original offer; b. new terms would materially alter k; orc. offeror objects w/in reasonable time (or has already objected)3. conduct by both parties which recognizes existence of k is sufficient even thou

48、gh no writing establishes k.3. material alteration of the k:idaho power co. v. westinghouse electric corp. (voltage regulator):a. rule 1: per 2-207, addit terms are only proposals. unless acceptance made conditional upon acceptance of new terms, never really changed terms of k.rule 2: ps k did not “

49、cancel out” ds liability since it didnt talk about it. just added new terms to k. since it would “materially alter” the k however, it was dropped out as inappropriate.rule 3: mirror image rule is dead. to get into the k, party must be very clear and get clear and definite acceptance of terms or make

50、 performance contingent upon acceptance.b. case: d had right to disclaim on the back of its form and per ucc 2-207, ps terms were never really accepted and/or incorporated into k.c. roto-lith (celophane bags): if conspicuous notice that if these terms are not acceptable then no k, buyer must notify

51、seller at once; by silence and acceptance of packages, party accepts the terms. *roto-lith has been overruled b/c needs clearer language to get into proviso today. also, courts finding in roto-lith goes explicitely contrary to the very goal of 2-207, which is to give the control to the buyer.d. poli

52、cy: 2-207 will often find changes in ks where cl would not. but, for ucc to apply, one must be a merchant and it must deal with goods.e. when 2-207 is put together with 2-204 (ks in any form), clear that code intends to liberalize findings of alterations in k.f. c/l: everything must line up; you hav

53、e everything or you have nothing.ucc: you have some terms, but others are misaligned.g. 2-207 schematic:1) is there an agreement on the documents?2) rule: additional terms are in unless:“material alterations”: if wholly different, they fall out.“consent” cannot be presumed to additional terms.4. con

54、duct affirming a k:in re score board, inc. (bryant memorabilia):a. rule 1: per 2-207 (3), where parties agree on the central terms and manifest an intention to be bound by them a k will be created.rule 1.5: mailing of checks/cashing of checks indicate acceptance of offersrule 2: ks do not have to be

55、 signed by both parties to be effective so long as there is conduct indicating other form of acceptance.rule 3: minors entering into ks can ratify voidable ks by conduct alone after reaching age of majority.b. case: bryant did have a k with score board b/c he ratified it via his behavior and therefo

56、re, neither majority nor signature were necessary.5. shrinkwrap/click wrap agreements (per 2-207 analysis)majority: shrinkwrap not enforceablestep-saver v. wyse (boxtop license): a. rule 1: clicking acceptance or opening package indicates acceptance of the k/license unless one of the 2-207 exception

57、s applies. and it does apply b/c the court says they are goods.rule 2: just because there is repeated purchase does not mean there is an acceptance of the k terms. rule 3: boxtop license materially altered k and was never negotiated so under 2-207 the terms do not apply. additional terms will not be incorporated into the k if the terms would adversely affect the parties agreement. b. case: step-saver had objected to the terms of the agreement many times. also, wyse never obtained the express agreement to the terms. also, in thi