Acing Contracts
Author:
Darrow-Kleinhaus, Suzanne
Edition:
1st
Copyright Date:
2010
19 chapters
have results for acing contracts
Conclusion: General Examination Tips 1 result
Chapter 1. Introduction to Contract Law 43 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A contract is voidable if one or more of the parties have the power to avoid the legal obligations imposed by the contract. For example, a contract made by a party while under a legal incapacity is voidable. One such incapacity is based on age where a person under the age of 18 has the capacity to incur only voidable contractual duties. Here, the minor may choose either to avoid or perform the contract. Other instances where a party has such power to avoid performance exist where the person has been induced to contract by means of fraud, duress, or mistake.
- Conceptual difficulties arise with respect to a contract implied-in-law, which is not really a contract at all. Here, the court creates an obligation in law (quasi-contract) to do justice even though no promise was ever made or intended. The main purpose of a quasi-contract is the prevention of unjust enrichment. A common example is the case where a doctor provides necessary medical care to someone in dire need. The doctor will be able to recover in quasi-contract the value of his or her services, even though the party receiving the benefit of those services did not expressly or impliedly promise to do so at the time.
- Contracts is a common law subject because it is based largely on the decisions of judges as opposed to legislative enactment. This is not to say, however, that there is no statutory law governing contracts because there is a strong legislative component, most notably in the form of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) governing the sale of goods. But quite apart from the UCC, individual states have enacted legislation dealing with all aspects of contract law. Consequently, any client issue involving a contracts question requires a careful review of the relevant jurisdiction’s statutory code.
- A contract is considered void when it results in no legal obligation on the part of the promisor. It is also accurate to say that no contract has been formed. For example, if the parties’ exchange of promises lacks consideration, then the contract is said to be “void for lack of consideration.”
- An unenforceable contract is one that may be valid but which the court will not enforce. This can be for any number of reasons, including, for example, an agreement which satisfies all the requirements for a contract but is lacking a signed writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Some contracts are unenforceable because they arise out of illegal bargains And still others are deemed unenforceable because they are “against public policy” in that the contract offends the public interest either because of improper conduct in the bargaining process, the subject matter of the contract, or both.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Statute of Frauds 75 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A. Type of Contract
- The next question is whether it was the type of contract which was required to be in writing to be enforceable. Based on the facts, the statute of fraud’s one-year rule is implicated. The one-year rule requires that contracts that cannot be completed within a year of their making must be in writing. Here, the Picasso–Gatsby contract was entered into on November 1. While the terms of the contract specified that Picasso was to complete the mural no later than December 31 of the following year, which would be 14 months after the making of the contract, it was possible for the contract to be completed before that time. The one-year rule is interpreted to mean that the contract, by its terms, clearly cannot be performed within a year of its making. In this case, since the mural could have been completed within a year and the contract terms only defined a final completion date, a writing was not required. The Gatsby Hotel will not be successful in its claim because the statute of frauds...
- Note, however, that this does not apply if the underlying contract was between the promisor and the creditor. For example, if Sam orally tells Ben to “send the Contracts casebook to Dan and send the bill of $85 to me,” the primary contract is between Sam and Ben and not between Sam and Dan. Dan is merely a third party beneficiary and the contract between Sam and Ben is enforceable even though it is not in writing.
- This provision refers to a contract, which by its terms, cannot be fully performed within one year from its making. The one-year period begins from the date the contract is made, not from when performance is promised. Therefore, the two critical reference points to consider when determining whether a writing is necessary are the time of the making of the contract (not the making of the offer) and the time when performance is to be completed. A writing is required only if the contract specifically precludes performance within one year—not just that performance appears to be impossible to complete.
- Generally, part performance does not make a contract that otherwise falls within the statute enforceable. However, the party may have a claim based on restitution or reliance. Although there is no exception for part performance of a contract within the one-year provision, most courts have held that a party who has fully performed such a contract can enforce it.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Defenses and Limits on Enforceability 127 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The principles covered in this section share a common remedial theme even though each has its own specific requirements. In the case where there has been no assent, then naturally no contract has been formed. In other instances, the remedy is to allow the party to avoid the contract. A voidable contract is not the same as a void contract. A void contract is not a contract—it is a legal nullity. On the other hand, a voidable contract is one where the aggrieved party can choose to render the promised performance or rescind the agreement. The party entitled to avoid the contract may sue affirmatively or claim the right of avoidance if sued by the other party for non-performance.
- An unconscionable contract is one that is manifestly unfair or oppressive–a contract which no one in her right senses and not under a delusion would make. The contract must be unconscionable at the time of its making. In determining whether a contract is unconscionable, the court looks to see whether it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
- What constitutes illegality with respect to contractual agreements? If either the consideration or the object of the contract is illegal, the bargain is treated as an illegal contract. Some contracts are illegal because they are expressly prohibited by statute (for example, gambling agreements or promises for usurious interest) whereas others are classified as illegal because they violate public policy (for example, contracts in restraint of trade or contracts to impair family relations
- While it is easy to see why a contract that violates a rule of law is illegal and will not be enforced, it is not always so clear in cases where the contract is not illegal but rather offends public policy. Although such contracts may have been the result of a bargained-for exchange, notions of public policy would be seriously offended if such contracts were enforced by a court of law. Here the court must consider the competing interests of freedom of contract and the wider public interest. Consequently, courts take a cautious and measured approach so as not to overstep their bounds into the legislative domain.
- (2). The issue is whether the contract is voidable based on mistake when neither party knew there were insects on Shane’s farm. Where a mistake of both parties at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption on which the contract was made has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances, the contract is voidable by the adversely affected party unless he bears the risk of the mistake.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Third Party Interests 64 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Generally, privity of contract is required to provide a party with standing to sue and enforce contractual rights. This is because contract rights and duties exist only between the contracting parties and do not extend to those who are not parties to the contract. However, third party beneficiaries are an exception to this rule. In some circumstances, third parties may be able to sue on their own behalf to enforce the agreement.
- In determining whether a third party has acquired the right of enforcement, the critical factor is whether the contract was made for the benefit of the third party. The contracting parties must have intended the contract to benefit the third party at the time of the contract’s formation. While beneficiaries may be “incidental” or “intended,” only intended beneficiaries have the right of enforcement.
- —was the contract made for the benefit of the third party? The contracting parties must clearly intend and specify in the contract that a third party receive rights or benefits from the performance of the contract.
- Assignment and delegation involve introducing new parties to the contract its formation. Unlike third party beneficiaries who acquire their interest at the time the original contract is formed, assignees and delegates acquire their rights through a later transaction with one of the original contracting parties. The transfer of a right is an “assignment,” and the transfer of a duty is a “delegation.” An “assignment of the contract” requires both the assignment of rights and the delegation of duties.
- However, the delegation of one party’s duties to another can have a significant impact on the other party to the contract. For example, suppose Seth purchases a fitness center for his home from Brands Fitness Center. One of the terms of the Seth–Brands contract was that Brands would provide training, service, and maintenance from its team of renowned fitness professionals. Seth chose to purchase the equipment from Brands for this reason. Shortly after signing the contract, Brands assigned the Seth–Brands contract to another fitness center, Shape–Up. However, Shape–Up’s equipment training and service is provided by its regular sales staff. While competent, they are not professionals. Seth would not be obligated to accept Shape–Up’s performance of the Seth–Brands contract because the same services were not being provided.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Consideration 47 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Presumably, once parties have made a contract, each is bound to what was agreed and neither party has the right to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement. Any attempt to do so would be a breach of contract. However, parties should be able to make a subsequent agreement to amend that contract. The new agreement to modify the contract is itself a contract and subject to all the rules governing the formation of contracts, which of course includes the requirement of consideration.
- Frequently, courts refer to the consideration doctrine as imposing a “mutuality of obligation” on the parties where “both parties are bound, or neither is bound.” This concept seems to follow from the consideration doctrine that requires both parties to give something of legal value in order to get something in exchange. However, the statement is overly broad and, if applied literally, would void several types of contracts that are routinely recognized. For example, consider the unilateral contract where a promise is exchanged for a performance. In these contracts where the consideration is the bargained-for performance, the promisor’s duty does not arise until the performance is rendered. Typically in unilateral contracts, there is no one point in time where both parties will be obligated to do something. In short, unilateral contracts do not require “mutuality of obligation.” The same can be said of bilateral contracts. There is no requirement that the parties obligations assumed...
- As we discussed in Chapter 1, not all promises impose contract liability and the question for contract law is determining which promises should be enforced. One of the limitations on the enforcement of promises is the requirement of consideration.
- In contracts involving the sale of goods, UCC 2–306(2) follows a similar approach by implying an obligation of “best efforts” in exclusive dealing contracts.
- contract, the seller agrees to sell and the buyer agrees to buy all of the goods of a particular kind that the buyer may contract, the seller agrees to sell and the buyer agrees to buy all of the goods of a particular kind that the seller may
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Parol Evidence and Interpretation 39 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Interpretation is the process by which a court determines the meaning to give the language used by the parties in their contract to determine its legal effect. This includes ascertaining the meaning of specific contract language as well as implying terms where the contract itself may be silent. This later task of supplying terms to fill gaps in the parties’ agreement is referred to as contract “construction.” As always, the court’s concern is to discern and give meaning to the intent and expectations of the parties in forming the contract.
- If these sources are not helpful in ascertaining the meaning of the disputed terms, the court next looks to rules applicable to similar contracts and considers supplementary rules, both statutory and common-law, to fill the gap. A good way to summarize the process is to think of it as the movement from the specific to the general: the first interpretive source is the specific agreement, followed by the totality of the transactions between the parties, trade usage, rules applicable to similar contracts, general rules of contract law, and finally the general standards of reasonableness and good faith.
- Here, the buyer ordered a large quantity of chicken from the seller. The contract specified “US Fresh Frozen Chicken, Grade A, Government Inspected” chicken of two different sizes. The prices for the two sizes were different with a lower price per pound for the larger chickens. When the chickens were delivered, the buyer claimed the larger chickens were stewing chickens and not the frying chickens required by the contract. The buyer said that “chicken” meant “young chicken.” The seller said its shipment of stewing chickens was not a breach of contract because chicken as meant in the contract meant both frying and stewing chicken and that the difference in price made it clear that the cheaper chicken was stewing chicken. Here, the price term in the contract supported the seller’s argument that two different types of chicken were contemplated by the parties because the price of the larger birds was below the market price for fryers.
- A. Contract Meaning?
- If so, proceed to Part C for contracts involving the common law and Part D for contracts involving the sale of goods.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. Contract Remedies 136 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In these examples, Sarah and Deb chose to make substitute contracts and we measured their damages by comparing the difference between their original contracts and the substitute transactions. However, sometimes a party cannot make a substitute contract or chooses not to do so. In this case, the damages are measured by comparing the contract price with the current market value of a substitute performance. For example, even if Sarah chose not to hire another tutor when Deb breached, Sarah would be entitled to damages if the market price of the tutoring was higher than the contract price she had with Deb. The same principle applies for Deb: if she opts not to tutor another student when Sarah breaches, Deb is entitled to claim a loss based on the difference between the contract price and the market price she would have earned had she taken another student.
- As you know by now, there are quite possibly as many ways to breach a contract as there are types of contracts. As a result, it is impossible to provide a single formula that accounts for all possible damage calculations. Courts consider a multitude of factors in determining an award that places the non-breaching party in the position she would have been in had the contract been performed; we must be similarly flexible. Still, there are some common types of contract breaches that are helpful for organizing our analysis. We considered a few of them in the above example, but now we will look at them more closely.
- Reliance damages are intended to restore any expenses or losses the plaintiff has expended in reliance on the contract, thus returning the plaintiff to the position she would have been in had no contract been made. Ben would not have paid $500 to make new sails for the Hearsay if he were not going to purchase it. This cost was incurred solely in reliance on the contract and would be recoverable as reliance damages.
- Unjust enrichment covers many situations. It can be a basis for liability in cases where the parties have not made an actual agreement or their agreement does not qualify as a contract, perhaps because of a failure during the formation process. Still, there was some interaction which resulted in one party gaining a benefit from the other. In such cases, a contract would be implied-in-law (quasi-contract) for the purposes of providing a remedy. Unjust enrichment also plays a role when there has been a breach of a valid contract. The contract may be an actual agreement or one implied-in-fact. One of the parties may have conferred a benefit on the other party before the breach occurred and restitution of that benefit might be a better option than any of the other contractual remedies.
- After full and fair negotiations, Jill and Meredith entered into a written contract. The contract price was $200,000, with $150,000 for the addition and $50,000 for the remodeling of the existing store. Meredith was to pay $50,000 upon execution of the contract and the balance upon completion of the project. Meredith paid Jill $50,000 upon signing the contract. Among other things, the agreement contained the following provisions in numbered paragraphs:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Impracticability and Frustration of Purpose 48 results (showing 5 best matches)
- There was much celebration in the corporate offices of Vista Vehicle when they won the contract. It was their first contract with NASA. While the contract bid was based on only a prototype, Vista was certain it could produce the final product—if certain technological breakthroughs occurred as planned.
- ontract liability is strict liability. This means that the duties imposed by contracts are absolute and one is liable in damages for breach even if she is without fault and even if circumstances have changed to make the contract more burdensome or less desirable than expected. The maxim,
- —was the risk within a party’s control? If so, then that party should bear the risk of its occurrence because it could have shifted the risk to a third party by contract (i.e., protecting oneself by getting insurance). For example, if a wholesaler contracts to sell goods that it obtains from a particular supplier, then the wholesaler can contract with the supplier to secure its source of supply.
- in forming the contract? The supervening event must totally or nearly totally destroy the purpose of the contract. In determining whether a party’s principal purpose has been substantially frustrated, ask the following questions:
- —was the purpose or object of the contract known and recognized by both parties at the time of contract? The purpose cannot be a secret purpose, known by only one party.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Offer and Acceptance 131 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In forming a unilateral contract, the offeror is seeking an act, and not a promise to perform. Therefore, if the offer seeks acceptance by performance and not a return promise, then a contract can be formed only by performing the requested performance. The offer is not accepted until performance is completed; moreover, there is no contract and legal liability does not attach until the offeree has fully performed.
- he first requirement to form a contract is an agreement between the parties, generally referred to as a mutual manifestation of assent. Both parties must intend to contract and must agree to the same terms. Typically, mutual assent is found through the process of offer and acceptance. The proposal to enter into a contract is called an offer and the person who makes it is called the “offeror.” The party to whom the offer is made is called the “offeree.” Upon receiving the offer, if the offeree wishes to enter the agreement proposed by the offer, she must manifest her assent to it. The offeree’s assent to the terms of the offer is called the acceptance.
- The result would be different, however, if Spencer had made the offer irrevocable by forming an option contract. Suppose that Adam had given Spencer $100 to hold the offer open for a period of one week. Now Spencer cannot sell the car to someone else but must wait one week until Adam decides what he wants to do. This is referred to as an option contract—it meets the requirements for the formation of a contract, i.e., there is mutual assent and consideration, and limits the offeror’s power to revoke the offer during the time period of the option.
- Basically, there are two ways in which an offer can be made irrevocable when dealing with bilateral contracts. One way applies only to contracts for the sale of goods and is known as a “firm offer.” This is discussed later in the section on Formation Under the UCC. Another way to make an offer irrevocable is with an option contract as we’ve just seen with Spencer and Adam and typically requires the giving of consideration.
- Irrevocable offers also arise in the context of unilateral contracts when the offeree begins the performance invited by the offer. Where the offer invites acceptance by performance only and does not allow for a promissory acceptance, an option contract is created to protect the offeree when the offeree “tenders or begins the invited performance or tenders a beginning of it.” The offer becomes “irrevocable” and the offeree must be allowed a reasonable time to complete the performance. Naturally, the offeree must complete the required performance before the offeror’s duty of performance under the contract arises.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Performance: Promises and Conditions 61 results (showing 5 best matches)
- If a contract term is only a promise
- It should be noted that the term “condition” as used in this example refers to an event which must occur before a party is obligated to perform a promise made in an existing contract. This is distinguishable from a condition precedent to the formation of a contract where the contract itself does not arise unless the condition is fulfilled. Here, the contract as a whole is conditional and the duties of both parties are subject to the condition as opposed to the performance of an individual party. If the contract as a whole is conditional, then failure of the condition means that neither party is bound to the agreement nor has the right to demand performance from the other. Even if one of the parties wanted to waive the condition and hold the other party to the deal, it would not be possible. On the other hand, if the condition is intended to affect the performance of only one of the parties, then that party may waive the condition and hold the other party to the contract.
- If the contract term is only a condition
- If a contract term is both a promise and a condition
- Typically, a determination of whether the standard is objective or subjective satisfaction depends on the subject matter of the contract. If it is a commercial contract such as one involving manufacturing or construction, then objective satisfaction, which requires the satisfaction of a reasonable person, is required. On the other hand, if the contract involves personal services where the taste, fancy or judgment of the individual is involved, then subjective satisfaction is required. Still, even personal satisfaction must be exercised in good faith which means honesty in fact, i.e., the party must be honestly dissatisfied with the performance and not the bargain itself. Where the contract language is not clear whether the test is one of honest satisfaction or reasonable satisfaction, then the preference is for an objective standard of reasonableness to avoid the increased risk of forfeiture.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Material Breach and Substantial Performance 68 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The other situation that arises with installment contracts is when a buyer receives a non-conforming installment and wants to use it as a basis to cancel the entire contract. Here, too, the UCC imposes the substantial performance rule in UCC 2–612(3) where the buyer can treat the breach of an installment as a breach of the whole if the “non-conformity or default with respect to one or more installments substantially impairs the value of the whole contract[.]” Let’s return to our example: suppose Ben’s inspection of the first shipment of basketballs shows that they are all defective. Ben would most likely be able to claim that the value of the installment was substantially impaired by the non-conformity and reject it. However, Ben would not be able to use the non-conformity of this one installment as a basis to cancel the whole contract unless he can show that the defect in the single installment substantially impairs the value of the entire contract. For example, suppose Ben had...
- —what is the extent to which the breaching party will suffer forfeiture? Where a breaching party’s performance falls short of substantial performance, a court can avoid forfeiture and allow recovery on the contract if the contract is “divisible.” Ask: is the contract divisible?
- Even if a party’s performance falls short of that required by the doctrine of substantial performance, a court can avoid forfeiture and allow recovery on the contract if the contract is “divisible.” A contract is divisible if the performances to be exchanged can be divided into “corresponding pairs of part performances so that the parts of each pair are properly regarded as agreed equivalents[.]”
- The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods. Instead, the Code follows the perfect tender rule where a buyer is free to reject the goods unless the seller’s tender conforms in every respect to the contract. In relevant part, UCC 2–601 states that “if the goods or the tender of the delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may (a) reject the whole; or (b) accept the whole; or (c) accept any commercial unit or units and reject the rest.”
- . If the time for performance has passed or the need for timely performance is so essential that any delay would result in a discharge of the contract, then there is no possibility for cure. In this case, the non-breaching party’s remaining duties under the contract are discharged.
- Open Chapter
Introduction 3 results
- After teaching Contracts for a number of years, I found that my students benefitted greatly from the overview provided by the Contracts TimeLine. I recommend it as your starting point to get a sense of the whole subject. When you look at the big picture, it does not matter where your professor begins the course—whether it’s formation or damages—you can see where all the pieces fit and it is much easier not to get lost in the details. The Contracts TimeLine, when combined with the topical checklists, provides a blueprint for preparing for and taking your contracts exam.
- any students find contracts to be the most challenging of their first year subjects. It seems that the combination of the common law, the Restatement, and the Uniform Commercial Code can be confusing and makes the subject appear more difficult than it needs to be. This book should clear up that confusion and be a useful learning tool. It does not attempt to explain contract principles in great detail, but rather, it seeks to provide a summary overview of the relevant law with a comprehensive set of checklists to guide you through a reasoned analysis of the types of fact patterns you are likely to encounter on your exam.
- I have tried not to over-document the source materials, but this has not always been possible. All references to the Restatement mean to the Restatement Second. Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code is referenced where applicable to provide the sales counterpart to a common law rule but it is well beyond the scope of this book to discuss all the rules under UCC Article 2. Consequently, it covers only the basic topics likely to be covered in a general contracts course and not one specifically dealing with the Uniform Commercial Code.
- Open Chapter
Appendix. Summary–Checklists 33 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Has one of the contract parties purported to transfer her rights or delegate her duties under the contract to someone else who was not an original party to the contract?
- Was the injured party’s loss caused by reliance on the contract? Can she be put in as good a position as she would have been in had the contract not been made?
- • Was it acceptance of an option contract?
- 3. Was there an option contract or an irrevocable offer?
- d. Was there an offer for a unilateral contract? Has the offeree partially performed the requested performance? Ask the following:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Anticipatory Repudiation 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A repudiation may also occur through conduct. Here, the party voluntarily does something to put the promised performance out of her power to perform. For example, on September 1, Ben contracts to sell and Seth agrees to buy Ben’s house with payment and delivery of the deed to occur on September 30. On September 15, Ben contracts to sell his house to Sam. Ben’s making of the contract with Sam is a repudiation through conduct of his contract with Ben.
- The court’s problem was finding a basis for a breach of contract action on May 22 when De La Tour’s performance was not due until June 1. Classic contract doctrine allowed for breach only when the time for performance had passed. In addressing the problem, the court identified two issues: first, whether a repudiation gives rise immediately to a claim for total breach; and second, whether a repudiation by one party discharges the non-repudiating party’s remaining duties under the contract. The court answered both questions in the affirmative: an anticipatory repudiation of a promise to perform constitutes a total breach and, as a result, the injured party has a claim for damages and may assume that her own obligations under the contract have been discharged.
- that the doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply where there is a repudiation of an executory contract for the payment of money only. In this case, the aggrieved party must await the time for performance to bring suit for damages. In short, the doctrine applies only where there are executory obligations on both sides of the contract: it does not apply if a party repudiates a unilateral promise to pay money in the future or in future installments or there is a bilateral contract where the aggrieved party has fully performed its end of the bargain.
- , not if the party has repudiated either a unilateral contract or a bilateral contract that has been fully performed by the injured party. The injured party must await the time for performance to sue for damages. This is the exception to the general rule that a party may bring suit immediately for an anticipatory repudiation.
- L & L may recover $2,500—the difference between the contract price it had with Lobster for $5,000 for seafood platters and the $7,500 for the cost of cover it had to pay Shrimpman. After a breach, the buyer may cover by making a reasonable purchase in good faith of substitute goods and recover from the seller the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Warranties 9 results (showing 5 best matches)
- . The 2003 revision of Article 2 adds language to U.C.C. § 2–316 that must be included in a disclaimer of either merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose in a consumer contract. A consumer contract is defined in the revised U.C.C. § 2–103(d) to be a contract between a merchant seller and a consumer. A consumer is defined in revised U.C.C. § 2–103(c) to mean an individual who buys goods primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
- In a contract for the sale of goods, the buyer has certain expectations about the goods being purchased. One very basic expectation is that the seller has title to the goods which the buyer will receive upon purchase. The buyer receives this protection under UCC 2–312 where the seller warrants that “the title conveyed shall be good, and its transfer rightful[.]”
- But Lisa is not without recourse when she gives the vase back: she can sue Emma for breach of warranty. When Emma sold the vase to Lisa, she warranted good title. It does not matter whether Emma knew she could not give title. Warranty is sort of like strict liability—she did not give what she contracted to give. And Emma can bring a breach of warranty claim against Sam.
- For the implied warranty of merchantability under UCC 2–314 to attach, there must be a contract for the sale of goods and the seller must be a merchant. A merchant is one “who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction[.]”
- Even if a contract contains a clause which states the buyer’s exclusive or limited remedy, the buyer can still resort to UCC 2–719(2) to avoid its effect. If the buyer can establish that the exclusive remedy provided in the contract “[f]ails of its essential purpose,”
- Open Chapter
Table of Contents 17 results (showing 5 best matches)
Acknowledgments 1 result
- I wish to thank my former law teachers and now colleagues, Professors Heather Melniker and Sidney Kwestel, who model by example the art of teaching, the process of legal thinking, and the type of professionalism that comes only from within. But a very special thank you is owed to Sidney Kwestel, my Contracts professor, without whom this book would not have been written. I realized early in his class that what was important was learning to identify the relevant questions because the answers I sought were to be found in the questions I asked. It is wholly appropriate and right to recognize his enormous contribution to a book which shows how to organize the rules into a series of logical questions that guides the thought process to resolve the legal issue.
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: April 27th, 2010
- ISBN: 9780314171719
- Subject: Contracts
- Series: Acing Series
- Type: Exam Prep
- Description: This study aid features an innovative method of content organization. It uses a checklist format to lead students through questions they need to ask to fully evaluate the legal problem they are trying to solve. It also synthesizes the material in a way that most students are unable to do on their own, and assembles the different issues, presenting a clear guide to procedural analysis that students can draw upon when writing their exams. Other study aids provide sample problems, but none offer the systematic approach to problem solving found in this book.