Definition and Requirements of a Contract: Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School: Illinois Court of Appeals, 1976.

FACTS: In December 1973 the plaintiff, Robert Steinberg, applied for admissions to Chicago Medical School. Robert paid the application fee of $15.00. His application for admissions was rejected. Steinberg filed against the school, claiming that the Chicago Medical School failed to evaluate his application, according to the academic entrance criteria printed in the schools bulletin. Robert alleged that the Chicago Medical School relied primarily on the relationships the applicants held with the faculty of the school, and promises made by the applicant and the families of the applicants to pay large sums of money to the school. Robert Steinberg further alleged, that the school breached contract when they accepted his application fee. Did the Chicago Medical Schools acceptance of the $15.00 application fee establish a contract between them and Robert Steinberg? Does the $15.00 fee act as a consideration? Thus, allowing for the contract to be legally binding? Did the Chicago Medical School deviate from the standards they place on viewing applications? Did they make their decision based on Roberts relations/lack there of with the Chicago Medical School faculty? Did the Chicago Medical Schools bulletin institute a valid offer? DECISION: For the Chicago Medical School, the trial court sustained the motion to dismiss. REASON: The defendant filed a motion to dismiss (Chicago Medical). No contract came into existence because a contract must constitute a valid offer. The Chicago Medical Schools publication did not constitute a valid offer.

ISSUE:

Invitation Seeking Officers Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, INC. Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1957

FACTS:

This case grew from an alleged refusal of the defendant to sell the plaintiff a certain fur piece. The fur piece was offered for a sales price. It appears on record that on April 6, 1956, the defendant published an advertisement. The advertisement stated the following: Fur coats worth $100.00 dollars first come first serve $1.00. The defendant again published another advertisement stating that the coast would sell for a sales price of $1.00, on April 13. The plaintiff presented himself at the store on both dates being the first person in the store; however, he was refused the sale. The defendant (Surplus Store, INC.) stated that the sale was intended for women, and would not be granted to men. The defendant stated that the offer was unilateral and could be withdrawn at any point. The issue is whether or not the advertisement constitutes as a contract between the buyer and the seller?

ISSUE:

DECISION: The Minnesota Supreme Court sided with the plaintiff, stating that the advertisement did enforce as a contract. REASON: Such advertisements are not offers, which become contracts as soon as any person to whose notice they may come signifies his acceptance by notifying the other that he will take a certain quantity of them. Such advertisements become a contract upon sale when accepted by the seller, and the seller may modify this. The facts show that some performance was promised in positive terms in return for something requested. The plaintiff managed to be the first one in the store as stated and promised by the advertisement. Unconscionable Contract Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture. CO. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 1965 FACTS: Appellee, Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, operates a retail sore in the District of Columbia. From the time of 1957 to 1962 each appellant in these cases purchased a number of household items from Walker-Thomas, for which payments were to be made in installments. The terms of each installment were printed form contract, which set fourth the value of the purchased item and purported to lease the item to appellant for a stipulated monthly rent payment. The contract stated that the title would remain in the possession of Walker-Thomas until the total of all

monthly payments totaled the value of the item. Also, the contract stated that, the amount of each periodical installment payment to be made by [purchaser] to the Company under this present lease shall be inclusive of an not in addition to the amount of each installment payment made by [purchaser] under such prior leases, bills, or accounts; and all payments now and hereafter made by [purchaser] shall be credited pro rata on all outstanding leases, bills, and accounts due the Company by [purchaser] at the time each such payment is made. As a result of this statement, the debt incurred at the time of purchase of each item was secured by the right to repossess all the items previously purchased by the same purchaser, and each new item automatically became subject to a security interest arising out of the previous dealings. On April 7, 1962, Appellant Williams bought a stereo set of stated value of $514.95. She defaulted shortly thereafter, on her payments to be made to the Company. The appellee sought to replevy all the items purchased since Decmber 1957. ISSUE: The issue of this case is whether or not the contracts being enforced are unconscionable? thusly, making them not enforceable. Did each party to the contract, considering his obvious education or lack of it, have a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract, or were the important terms hidden in the maze of fine print and minimized by deceptive sales practices?

DECISION: The Court of General Sessions granted judgment for the apellee. No findings were made in the matter of unconscionability, and the record was not sufficient enough for the matter of law. The cases must be remanded to the trail court for further proceedings. REASON: Generally, when someone signs a contract they are held to taking the risk of signing the contract, and are assumed to have gained full knowledge of what the contract entails. The court also can determine whether the terms of the contract are absurdly unfair, and then should be withheld. Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms, which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.

Brown Versus Board of Education of Topekab

FACTS:

In this Particular case the plaintiff (Brown) is suing the defendant (The Board of Education of Topeka) because the plaintiff was denied admission on multiple grounds to the school because the school is attended by white children. This violated the constitute that it is separate but equal conditions, under the 14th amendment justification. This is further shown because the plaintiff tried to show that he was not admitted on grounds that education was not equal and because of his skin color. But, it was a given a fact that education was ran by whites in this given time. It was nonexistent and ridiculous to even think of negroes being educated. Can their be jurisdiction without history of the issue in particular in the past? The issue of the particular case becomes that segregating the education system deprives individuals of education opportunities.

ISSUE:

DECISION: The courts decision in this particular case is that they concluded t hat in the field of public education the doctrine separate but equal is inherently unequal. It has a large effect on your social level and you skin color/race/ethnicity. REASON:The reason behind this particular decision is that the plaintiff and others hold a similar situation are deprived of the right of the 14th amendment which states concerning equal protection. Another issue is concerning the segregation of students concerning the race and not physical standing, which may to lead the thought of inferiority in the students minds.