CHAPTER 1 Salles v. Stafford, Derbes, and Roy, Inc.

FACTS: P and D enter into a written contract for the sale and purchase of ten lots of ground. !ond for deed" a securit# $easure for o%ligor&. R.S. The contract contained a clause: Specificall#" the clause relating to the 1& the 'endor $a# ha'e a new $ap or sur'e# $ade (& This $ap" if $ade" $a# show a change of position or location of the propert# sold" pro'ided the sa$e nu$%er of s)uare feet and location in the sa$e s)uare or plot shall %e retained *& the 'endor at his discretion $a+e appl# for and o%tain dedication of streets. Potestative condition, depends upon the whi$ of one of the parties, not enforcea%le. PR-CED.RA/: the court rendered in fa'or of plaintiff and Court of Appeal affir$ed. 0SS.E: Did the o%1ect of sale of the contract lac+ certaint# %ecause it was too %enefical to the 'endor& $a+ing the contract null under /a. C.C. art. 1223 and did the defendant %reach the contract4 R./E: Art. 1223 5 Ter$ is presu$ed to %enefit the o%ligor unless the agree$ent or the circu$stance show that it was intended to %enefit the o%ligee or %oth parties. A6A/7S0S: The court does not understand how the pri'ilege granted the 'endor of $a+ing a new $ap or sur'e# without pre1udicing the rights of the purchaser nullifies the contract. The other pri'ilege granted the 'endor to change the location of the lots in the sa$e s)uare does not $a+e the o%1ect of the contract uncertain. The conditions of the contract are to %e construed as the parties $ust %e supposed to ha'e understood the$ at the ti$e of its e8ecution. The agree$ent of sale is not a nullit# for uncertaint#" %ut the case will %e re$anded for decision on the %reach of contract clai$. PR-P-S0T0-6: 9hen parties enter into a contract to sell a plot of land an o%1ect& to another and there is a special pro'ision in the contract which allows the seller to create a new $ap which changes the location of the plot in the sa$e s)uare %ut the si:e ; shape re$ains the sa$e" the o%1ect will %e considered certain and the contract will not %e 'oided %ecause parties are free to contract for whate'er the# want as long as it is lawful. Harrison v. Gore: FACTS: <s. Harrsion alleges in her petition that she was $olested and se8uall# harassed %# her high school %as+et%all coach. She filed the petition eight #ears after the last tortious act. The prescripti'e period is 1 #ear. She is filing an e8ception to prescription that the court failed to appl# the 1= #ear contractual prescripti'e period to her clai$. Respondeat superior, e$plo#er is responsi%le for their e$plo#ees. 'icarious lia%ilit#& The court loo+s at the da$ages to see if it is %ased on tort or contract.

Art. 133>. Da$ages for nonpecuniar# loss

Da$ages for nonpecuniar# loss $a# %e reco'ered when the contract" %ecause of its nature" is intended to gratif# a nonpecuniar# interest and" %ecause of the circu$stances surrounding the for$ation or the nonperfor$ance of the contract" the o%ligor +new" or should ha'e +nown" that his failure to perfor$ would cause that +ind of loss. Regardless of the nature of the contract" these da$ages $a# %e reco'ered also when the o%ligor intended" through his failure" to aggrie'e the feelings of the o%ligee.
0SS.E: Should Art. *?33 which sa#s that personal actions ha'e a prescripti'e period of ten #ears appl# or is this clai$ %arred %# the one #ear prescripti'e period4 R./E: Art. *?@2, li%erati'e prescription runs against all persons unless e8ception is esta%lished %# law. Art *?@2 e'en if it is a $inor or inco$petent sa$e rule. A6A/7S0S: E'en when tortfeasor and 'icti$ are %ound %# a contract" courts usuall# appl# the delictual prescription 1 #ear& to actions that are reall# grounded in tort. The 1= #ear li%erati'e prescription is a applica%le onl# in the a%sence of another" specific legislati'e state$ent. The fact that the father had a contract with Trinit# Heights does not change the nature of the har$. The conduct arises fro$ an intentional tort %arred %# the prescription and is not a %reach of contract. Contract law is general legislation and the tort is specific legislation" the $ore specific should %e applied. Court held in fa'or of the defendant. The nature of the %reach will deter$ine if contract or tort law will %e applied. Court will loo+ at the real source of co$plaint in this case the real co$plaint is tortuous not contractual e'en though the A is arguing that there was %reach of contract on part of the school. Chapter ( !riefs Belgard d/b/a Belgard Construction Com any v. Collins
@(> So.(d 1(B? /a.App.*rd Cir. 133*& !o meeting of t"e minds

Facts 1. Collins store was da$aged %# a tornado in 6o'. 13>2. The %uilding was insured %# All,State. !elgard ca$e to Collins and said he would get a engineer to get an esti$ate. The engineer actuall# did the wor+. (. !elgard clai$s that Collins entered into an oral contract with hi$ %# his perfor$ance of consulting ser'ices" presentation of * construction %ids" and deli'er# of %ids to All,State office. *. Collins clai$s that she ne'er entered into an oral contract with !elgard and %elie'ed hi$ to %e a co$$ercial contractor soliciting for wor+. Collins %elie'ed she hired the engineer" !eard" and that she in no wa# was under a contract with !elgard.

Proc. Histor# 1. DC rendered 1udg$ent in fa'or of Collins" finding that there was no oral contract %etween the parties %ecause there had ne'er %een a C$eeting of the $inds.D (. !elgard appeals the 1udg$ent asserting as error the trial courtEs failure to find that there was a contract %etween the parties. 0ssue 9hether an oral contract e8isted %etween the two parties4 Holding 6o" there was no oral contract %etween the two parties. There was no unifor$it# of the will of the ( parties. The court sa#s Defendant did no %elie'e she was for$ing a contract with plaintiff. Here" the plaintiff %ears the %urden of pro'ing that there was a C$eeting of the $indsD %# a preponderance of the e'idence. Rules 1. Four ele$ents are re)uired for a 'alid contract: 1& the parties $ust ha'e legal capacit# to contractF (& the partiesE $utual consent $ust %e freel# gi'enF *& there $ust %e a lawful cause or purposeF and ?& the o%1ect of the contract $ust %e lawful" possi%le" and deter$ined or deter$ina%le CC Art. 131>" 13(2" 13@@" and 1321& (. A part# who de$ands perfor$ance of a contract has the %urden of pro'ing the e8istence of the o%ligation CC Art. 1>*1&. *. The e8istence of an oral contract with a 'alue in e8cess of B== dollars $ust %e pro'ed %# at least one witness and other corro%orating circu$stances CC Art. 1>?@&. Reasoning The e'idence supports the conclusion that Collins ne'er agreed to hire !elgard to do consulting wor+. She %elie'ed he was a contractor %idding for the construction wor+ on her %uilding. This is supported %# the fact that Collins %elie'ed that she was the one hiring !eard" the engineer. 0f she had contracted with !elgard to do consulting wor+ which included inspection of the %uilding %# an engineer" Collins would not ha'e called !eard in Fe%ruar# or <arch in order to find out what she owed hi$. This was se'eral wee+s after !elgard had presented his pac+age of infor$ation to CollinsF the date he clai$s an agree$ent was reached regarding his consulting ser'ices. Howe'er" Collins is responsi%le for pa#ing !elgard G1"*1?.(= for his cost of hiring !eard" which Collins recei'ed a %enefit of e8pert ad'ice. The court ordered Collins to pa# !elgard the a$ount plus legal interest fro$ the date of 1udg$ent.

!ort" #ouisiana $il% Producers &ssoc., Inc. v. '"e Sout"land Cor oration
*B( So.(d (3* /a.App.(d Cir 1322& Consent(offer ) acce tance

Facts 1. Plaintiff 6. /a. <PA& and Defendant Southland& had pre'iousl# conducted %usiness in the %u#ing and selling sale& of $il+ fro$ one another" at a price deter$ined %# the fi8ed pricing s#ste$ set forth %# either the state agenc# or federal agenc# regulating such acti'ities. (. Plaintiff sold the $il+ at the highest $ini$u$ cost fro$ either the state or federal agenc#. *. 9hen the $ini$u$ pricing ca$e under fire in 132@" Plaintiff decided to set its own price for $il+ sold to Defendant" and notified Defendant as such of its new pricing. ?. Plaintiff and Defendant corresponded fro$ August 132@ to April 1322" essentiall# %argaining o'er the price of $il+. Plaintiff stated that it would sell its $il+ at its own set price" and Defendant stated that it did not li+e the price and would onl# pa# the go'ern$ent esta%lished $ini$u$ price. B. During the ti$e of negotiation" Defendant continued to order $il+ fro$ Plaintiff" and Plaintiff %illed Defendant at its own esta%lished price. @. Defendant paid Plaintiff the a$ount of the go'ern$ent $ini$u$ price. Proc. Histor# 1. Plaintiff %rought suit against Defendant in Dece$%er" 132@ for the difference in price of G23" 3B>. (. DC entered 1udg$ent for the Plaintiff for said a$ount. *. Defendant appealed stating that the DC erred in suppl#ing the price. 0ssue 9hether or not an agree$ent e8isted for the price of %ul+ $il+ deli'ered %# the plaintiff to the defendant4 Holding 7es" a contract e8isted for the price of $il+ deli'ered %# the plaintiff to the defendant. C9e hold that P $ade an operati'e offer to sell to the D at stated prices for a stated period of ti$e" the acceptance of which was conte$plated to %e an order $ade %# defendant for a specific )uantit# of $il+. 9e hold that correspondence did not constitute an opera%le offer to %u# fro$ P %Hc the correspondence did not order a specific )uantit# at a stated price. 9e further hold that when the DEs e$plo#ee 'er%all# placed a periodical order for a specific )uantit# of $il+" and wHo conditioning the order as to price" each periodical order constituted an acceptance of plaintiffEs standing offer to sell at its stated priceID

Rules 1. The /ouisiana Ci'il Code states that an offer is a proposal to do so$ething or to refrain fro$ doing so$ething in return for a counter,pro$ise" an act" or for%earance. (. To %e considered an offer" * re)uire$ents $ust %e esta%lished: a. The design to gi'e the other part# the right of concluding the contract %# his assentF %. The offerorEs intention to o%ligate hi$selfF c. A serious intent. *. 9hen re)uire$ent CAD is a%sent" the proposition cannot %e considered an offer" %ut rather an in'itation to negotiate" or an e8pression of willingness to recei'e an offer fro$ the other part#. ?. The intention re)uired under C!D $ust %e that of creating a legal o%ligation and not one in the $oral sense or a dut# in conscience. B. A )uotation of prices is not an offer ot sell in the sense that a co$pleted contract will arise out of the $ere acceptance of the rate offered" or out of the gi'ing of an order for $erchandise in accordance with the proposed ter$s. But *"en a merc"ant, on re+uest, send a rice list to a customer *"o orders goods in accordance *it" t"e rice list, t"ere is a contract formed bet*een t"em for t"e rice and u on conditions mentioned in t"e rice list. Reasoning The court concludes that plaintiff $ade a standing or operati'e offer to sell for the stated period as was e8pressed in the $onthl# correspondence as well as in so$e telephone calls %etween the $anagers. The court considers the offer which was $ade an offer to sell rather than an offer to %u#. 0n order to %e legall# opera%le and to create a power of acceptance" it is necessar# that the offer shall contain all of the ter$s of the contract. 0t is not enough for one part# to sa# what he will doF he $ust also sa# what he will do it for" that is" what the other part# $ust do in e8change.
Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Com any v. International Harvester *@> So.(d 1==3 /a. 1323&. &ction, Plaintiff filed this e'iction suit alleging that defendant %reached its contract %# su%leasing propert# leased fro$ plaintiff. The district court ordered defendant to 'acate the pre$ises and deli'er possession of the propert# to plaintiff. The defendant appealed and the court of appeals re'ersed" indicating that plaintiffJs silence o'er the $atter o'er a period of 1@ $onths a$ounted to consent of the su%lease. Plaintiff appealed. -acts, Plaintiff leased so$e land to defendant for defendant to operate a sales and ser'ice center for truc+s. This land was directl# across the street fro$ where the Superdo$e was

%eing %uilt. After the Do$e was %uilt" the propert# 'alues increased significantl#. Defendant $o'ed its sales and ser'ice center to another location" and %uilt a new %uilding on the leased propert#. 0n 132B" defendant as+ed plaintiff if the# could su%lease the propert# for use as a par+ing garage. Plaintiff refused" citing the pre'iousl# signed lease agree$ent. Despite this" defendant did su%lease the propert# for the par+ing %usiness. /ater that #ear" a representati'e of the plaintiff contacted the defendant in writing" re)uesting that the# $eet to discuss the situation" %ut did not specificall# $ention the su%lease. /etters passed %ac+ and forth %ut nothing ca$e of the $atter. 1@ $onths later" an officer of the plaintiff co$plained to defendant a%out the pro%le$ with the leased propert#. Defendant responded %# sa#ing that it was co$pl#ing with the ter$s of its lease. Plaintiff filed suit shortl# thereafter. Issue, Did the lessor %# its silence and acceptance of rentals under the circu$stances of this case i$pliedl# consent to a su%lease and a $odification of the lease clause restricting the tenantJs use and occupanc# of the pre$ises4 Should the court" %# appl#ing the doctrine of a%use of rights to the facts of this case" refuse to enforce the lessorJs right under the lease contract to withhold per$ission fro$ the lessee to enter a su%lease with a third part#4 Held, Re'ersed 5 1udg$ent of trial court reinstated.

Rule, Consent results fro$ a free and deli%erate e8ercise of the will of each part# where the intent has %een $utuall# co$$unicated or i$plied" and accepted %# the part# to who$ a proposal is $ade. Consent $a# %e i$plied in the following instances: 1& when it is $anifested %# actions" e'en %# silence or inaction" in cases in which the# can fro$ the circu$stances %e supposed to $ean" or %# legal presu$ption are directed to %e considered as e'idence of an assent. (& when actions without words are done under circu$stances that naturall# i$pl# a consent to such contract. 0n cases where the law does not e8pressl# create a legal presu$ption of consent fro$ certain facts" it is left to the discretion of the 1udge to deter$ine if consent is to %e i$plied fro$ the particular circu$stances of the case. Reason, The court held that there was no showing that the plaintiff consented to the $odification of the leases such to per$it the su%lease. Additionall#" the plaintiff declined defendantJs re)uest to a$end the lease and offered instead to cancel the lease. This re)uest and denial of the re)uest show that plaintiff did not consent. As far as the dela# in filing the suit" it was shown that plaintiff is a co$pan# head)uarter in Chicago with 'ast real estate holdings. 0tJs dela# could ha'e %een %ased on its lac+ of infor$ation and inattention rather than consent. $arine Ins. Co., #imited, of #ondon, .ng. /. Re"m 122 So. 23 /a. App. -rl. Cir. 13*2&. This is an action for negligence 5 su%rogation clai$. &ction, Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant see+ing to reco'er" under su%rogation" $onies it had paid its insured for da$ages to his 'ehicle. The trial court dis$issed the suit and plaintiff appealed. -acts, Klein par+ed his 'ehicle at defendantJs par+ing lot. He then recei'ed an identification tic+et and paid the par+ing fee. Three hours later" Klein returned to find his 'ehicle stolen. Klein was then paid G*== fro$ his insurer" who is the plaintiff in this suit.

Issue, 9as defendantJs acceptance of the par+ing identification tic+et considered a contract %etween the parties. Held, Re'ersed.

Rule, A person who recei'es a chec+ for %aggage entrusted to a transfer co$pan# is not %ound %# an inscription on the %aggage chec+ li$iting lia%ilit# of the transfer co$pan# in the a%sence of proof of assent %# the passenger. The depositor# is %ound to use the sa$e diligence in preser'ing the deposit that he uses in preser'ing his own propert#. Reason, The court held that a proprietor of a par+ing lot who collects a fee for par+ing auto$o%iles is a co$pensated depositor#. As such" he is held to ta+e as good care of those 'ehicles as his own. Although defendant argued that he was pro'iding a pu%lic ser'ice and onl# charged a no$inal fee" the court found that the statute is clear and that if the application of the statute against this t#pe of %usiness in not in the pu%lic interest that the legislature and not the courts should address this issue. Cas"io v. &mco 'ransmissions @1* So(d. 2@B /a. App. *rd Cir. 133*&. This is an action for negligence 5 propert# da$age. &ction, Cashio filed suit against defendant for propert# da$age due to defendantJs negligence. The trial court held in fa'or of Cashio and the defendant appealed. -acts, Plaintiff and his son dro'e to 6ew -rleans to go to a Saints ga$e. The o%ser'ed a sign that stated LPar+ing G*.==. This sign was at the A$co Trans$ission shop. The# spo+e with an attendant" who was wearing an A$co shirt. The attendant indicated that he was e$plo#ed %# A$co and that plaintiff could par+ there for the fee. The owner of the shop" as well as the attendant were going to the ga$e as well. 9hen plaintiff returned" their 'ehicle was $issing. 6eigh%ors to the shop confir$ed the e8istence of the par+ing lot attendant. Plaintiffs then filed suit. Issue, 9as the legal relationship %etween <acaluso and Cashio that of co$pensated deposit or $erel# a lease of space4 Held, Co$pensated deposit. Affir$ed.

Rule, 0t has %een recogni:ed that the general rule is that par+ing lots are to %e treated as co$pensated depositaries. 6otwithstanding an# pro'ision of law to the contrar#" the lea'ing or par+ing of a 'ehicle %# an# person at a par+ing $eter operated %# an# $unicipalit# or other political su%di'ision or at an# pri'atel# owned unattended par+ing lot" when such par+ing lot has signs pro$inentl# displa#ed infor$ing custo$ers that the lot is unattended and when the owner retains the +e#s" shall not gi'e rise to a contract of deposit %# onl# to one of hiring or letting out space" and neither the political su%di'ision nor the par+ing lot owner shall there%# incur the o%ligations or the responsi%ilities of a depositar# for losses as a result of theft" 'andalis$" or propert# da$age.

Reason, The court held that the statute a%o'e regarding par+ing is not applica%le to this case. 0n this case" the onl# sign displa#ed was the cost of the par+ing" and did not state that the lot would %e unattended. Further" there was no indication that defendant intended to li$it lia%ilit# %# $erel# leasing space. -nce plaintiff ga'e defendant the 'ehicle and the defendant +nows it is there" consent is i$plied. !ased on this" it was deter$ined that defendant would ha'e to e8onerate hi$self fro$ fault" %ut the records indicates that he has not done this.

0o"nson v. Ca ital City -ord Com any, Inc. >B So.(d 2B /a. App. 1st. Cir. 13BB&. This is an action for specific perfor$ance of a contract. &ction, Plaintiff sued the defendant" see+ing specific perfor$ance of a contract. The district court held in fa'or of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed. Art. 12B>, -acts, Defendant ran an ad in the local paper see page ?*&. Plaintiff alleged that %ased on the ad" he purchased a new 13B? Ford fro$ defendant and traded in his e8isting 'ehicle. Defendant later refused to gi'e the plaintiff a 13BB $odel as was ad'ertised. Defendant indicated that plaintiff was under a dut# to infor$ the$ that he was there to accept the offer" as it would not ha'e paid as $uch for his trade if that were the case. Defendant apparentl# did not infor$ plaintiff that the trade in would alter the offer. Issue, Held, 9hether the newspaper ad'ertise$ent fro$ the defendant was an offer. Affir$ed.

Rule, A newspaper ad'ertise$ent $a# constitute an offer" acceptance of which will consu$$ate a contract and create an o%ligation in the offerer to perfor$ according to the ter$s of the pu%lished offer. A newspaper ad'ertise$ent to purchase %onds at par was an offer" rather than a $ere proposal to negotiate" %eing co$plete and definite" and if a$%iguous" construed against the offeror. The part# proposing shall %e presu$ed to continue in the intention" which his proposal e8pressed" if" one recei'ing the un)ualified assent of hi$ to who$ the proposition is $ade" he does not signif# the change of his intention. The Supre$e Court held that acceptance of an ad'ertised order co$pletes the contract" which is not su%1ect to further $odification %# either one of the parties without the consent of the other. Reason, The court held that the defendant was under an o%ligation to infor$ the plaintiff of an# changes to the offer. As this was not in the contract" the contract is construed against the defendant.

Dissent: ad'ertise$ents are $eant to %e in'itations to negotiate. !ort" Central 1tilities, Inc. v. 2al%er Community 2ater System, Inc. B=@ So.(d 1*(B /a. App. (nd. Cir. 13>2&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendant was a pu%lic entit# and that plaintiff was low %idder. As such" plaintiff alleged that he should ha'e %een awarded the contract. Defendant filed an e8ception of no cause of action which was sustained %# the trial court. This was re'ersed %# the appellate court and re$anded. Defendant then filed an <SM which was sustained %# the trial court. Plaintiff appealed. -acts, Defendant ad'ertised for %ids for a water distri%ution s#ste$. Plaintiff entered a %id" $eeting all re)uire$ents outlined in the ad'ertise$ent. Plaintiff was the low %idder" %ut did not get the contract. Plaintiff alleges that he should %e awarded da$ages for loss of profits" and for e8penses incurred. Issue, 9hether the defendantJs ad'ertise$ent a$ounts to an offer such that the plaintiffJs %id is an acceptance and co$pletes the for$ulation of a contract. Held, Affir$ed.

Rule, For an# proposal to )ualif# as an offer" it $ust reflect the intent of the author to gi'e to the other part# the right to concluding the contract %# assent. 9here this intent is not present" the proposal cannot %e considered an offer" %ut rather an in'itation to negotiate or an e8pression of willingness to recei'e offers fro$ others. .nder co$$on law" re)uest for %ids is not an offer" %ut an in'itation to negotiate. Ci'il /aw holds this as well. Reason, The court held that defendants $erel# indicated an intent to sell" thus it does not constitute an offer to accept the highest %id. Sc"uling%am v. &ic%len -acts3The def sent an irre'oca%le offer to purchase so$e propert# of the pl" along wH a pro$issor# note. Pl sued to enforce offer. Howe'er" the pl did not respond for *@ da#s. Def sent a telegra$ withdrawing offer B da#s %efore the pl sent an acceptance. Pl feels that if her pre'ious actions did not gi'e i$plied acceptance" e8press acceptance was sent. Def argue that it was too late %Hc the offer had %een withdrawn. Pl counter argue that the offer was irre'oca%le through act of sale" thus def could not withdraw offer. Issue3Does an irre'oca%le offer e8pire after a reasona%le ti$e4 Holding37es

Reasoning3The agree$ent pro'ides that the offer re$ain irre'oca%le until the act of sale. Since the offer does not designated a specific ti$e period for the act of sale" we conclude that it is an irre'oca%le offer wH0 13(>. 9hen the offeror $anifests an intent to gi'e the offeree a dela# within which to accept" without specif#ing a ti$e" the offer is irre'oca%le for a reasona%le ti$e. 9hat deter$ines Creasona%le ti$eD is to %e deter$ined under the facts and circu$stances of the case. 40n these circu$stances" there was a reasona%le period of ti$e in which the pl could ha'e accepted the offer. Howe'er" after *@ da#s the offer %eca$e unreasona%le" thus $a+ing the offer re'oca%le.
$eyers v. Burger 5ing Cor oration @1> So.(d 11(* /a. App. ?th. Cir. 133*&. &ction, <e#ers" an e$plo#ee of Par+wa# who was reno'ating a !urger King" sued !urger King when a $enu %oard fell on hi$. !K third partied Par+wa#" 6ationwide 0nde$nit# Par+wa#Js u$%rella& and 6ationwide <utual Par+wa#Js N./. carrier&. !urger King filed an <SM which was granted. Par+wa# appealed. -acts, <e#ers was wor+ing on a reno'ation 1o% at a !urger King" which was %eing co$pleted %# his e$plo#er Par+wa#. A $enu %oard fell on hi$ at the 1o% site" causing in1uries. 0t is i$portant to note that Par+wa# contractuall# agreed to insure !K against an# clai$ arising fro$ Par+wa#Js operations" and to na$e !K as an additional insured on itJs polic#. Par+wa# alleged that %ecause !K did not sign the contract until B? da#s fro$ the date Par+wa# signed it" there was no contract. Issue, 9hether Par+wa#Js offer to insure !K was irre'oca%le and whether it was accepted within the prescri%ed ti$e. Held, Affir$ed.

Rule, An offer that specifies a period of ti$e for acceptance is irre'oca%le during that ti$e period. 9hen the offeror $anifests an intent to gi'e the offeree a dela# within which to accept" without specif#ing a ti$e" the offer is re'oca%le for a reasona%le ti$e. An acceptance of an irre'oca%le offer is effecti'e when recei'ed %# the offeror. Reason, The court held that contract fro$ Par+wa# was a )uote which was in effect for Lat least ?B da#sL. The court %elie'es that Lat leastL $eans it could %e longer" thus it was irre'oca%le for a longer period. As it was signed 1ust 3 da#s later" the court held that this was a reasona%le period of ti$e.

2.$. Heroman ) Co., Inc. v. Saia .lectric, Inc. *?@ So.(d >(2 /a. App. 1st Cir. 1322&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff %rought this suit against defendant after defendant refused to perfor$ wor+ the# had agreed to in a construction pro1ect. The trial court held in fa'or of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

-acts, Plaintiff sought to o%tain %ids for reconstruction of Capital House hotel in !aton Rouge. Defendant contacted plaintiff in order to %id on the electrical wor+ for the 1o%. -n B,12,2*" defendant su%$itted a %id of **B"1(B.==. Howe'er" the o'erall price of the pro1ect e8ceeding the a$ount to %e spent on the pro1ect so the plans were $odified. During a $eeting in Septe$%er of 132*" plaintiff $et with defendant and other su%contractors to finali:e %ids. Defendant then %id (1?"@==.== %ased on the $odified plans. Three $onths later" plaintiff entered into a contract to co$plete the construction of the hotel. During the three $onth period" it was alleged that defendant was aware that the pro1ect was $o'ing forward. -nce infor$ed that the 1o% had %een awarded to plaintiff" and %# e8tension" the defendant" defendant pic+ed up the plans. A%out a $onth later" defendant su%$itted a new %id of *3@"*=B.==. 9hen plaintiff o%1ected" defendant reduced their %id to (@3"===.==. Although unaccepta%le to the plaintiff" he continued to atte$pt to negotiate with defendant %ut was not successful. Due to ti$e constraints" plaintiff hired an alternate su%contractor on a cost plus %asis. That 1o% a$ounted to *1="1>=.(*. Plaintiff sued for the difference %etween this a$ount and defendantJs original %id. Issue, Held, 9hether defendantJs offer to co$plete the pro1ect was a 'alid offer. Affir$ed.

Rule, The contract" consisting of a proposition and the consent to it" the agree$ent is inco$plete until the acceptance of the person to who$ it is proposed. 0f he" who proposes" should %efore that consent is gi'en" change his intention on the su%1ect" the concurrence of the two wills is wanting and there is no contract. An offer" under certain circu$stances" $a# re$ain irre'oca%le until the offeree is afforded reasona%le ti$e to accept. Reason, The court held that defendantJs offer was irre'oca%le until either re1ected or the pro1ect had %een a%andoned" pro'ided an unreasona%le ti$e had no elapsed. 0n this case" three $onths did elapse %ut %ased upon the su%stantial nature of the pro1ect and the fact that the e'idence supported all parties proceeding as if the pro1ect were $o'ing forward" the court held that this was not an unreasona%le ti$e. As such" defendant is %ound to the offer. Since defendant refused to co$plete the wor+" plaintiff was forced to find an alternate 'endor" who re)uired a $uch higher price for the wor+.
Ryder v. -rost * /a. Ann. B(* 1>?>&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, R#der sued Frost to reco'er GB==. The trial court held in fa'or of defendant and the plaintiff appealed. -acts, R#der and Frost were %usiness partners in 0llinois. Their %usiness failed and the# dissol'ed the co$pan#. 0n 1>?1" R#der atte$pted to settle all of the affairs of the co$pan#"

and too+ all of the assets. At that ti$e" R#der ga'e Frost a %ond of inde$nit# to hold hi$ har$less against all of the partnership de%ts. -ne of the de%ts included a G@=== to /ea'itt of 6ew 7or+ that was ne'er paid. 0n 1>?*" /ea'itt sued the %usiness and o%tained a 1udg$ent for the G@===" %ut /ea'itt later agreed to accept G(=== as full pa#$ent of the de%t. R#der sent a letter to Frost re)uesting Frost pa# G1=== toward the de%t. Frost replied in writing and stated that he will not gi'e G1===" %ut would gi'e GB== once the settle$ent with the /ea'itts was co$pleted and erased fro$ the court record. Additionall#" Frost indicated that once his partner returned" he would 'isit R#der and would pa# hi$ the GB== if R#der desired. So$e @ wee+s later" R#der resol'ed the 1udg$ent with /ea'itt. Issue, Held, 9hether R#der ga'e his assent to FrostJs proposition within a reasona%le ti$e. 9hether earlier notice of acceptance should ha'e %een gi'en. Re'ersed.

Rule, 0t is not indispensi%le that the consent should %e e8press. 0t $a# %e i$plied. An i$plied consent $a# %e $anifested %# actions. acceptance %# perfor$ance& Reason, The court held that R#der une)ui'ocall# $anifested his consent %ased on his following through with the negotiation of the 1udg$ent. Frost had indicated that he wished for the 1udg$ent to %e resol'ed" and for that %eing acco$plished" offered to pa# R#der GB==. Although Frost appears to ha'e $ade the argu$ent that his offer was not accepted ti$el#" the court disagreed. As noted a%o'e" the 1udg$ent was resol'ed a%out @ wee+s after FrostJs offer. Further" the court did not %elie'e that Frost was da$aged %# an# sort of dela#. Additionall#" there was nothing in FrostJs letter that R#der should ha'e to accept the offer within a specified ti$e. As such" the actions of R#der were his acceptance and 1udg$ent should %e $ade in fa'or of R#der. Cardinal 2"oesale Su ly, Inc. v. C"aisson B=? So.(d 1@2 /a. App. *rd Cir. 13>2&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff %rought this action to atte$pt to enforce guarantees for a loan. The trial court held in fa'or of the defendant and the plaintiff appealed. -acts, DefendantJs co$pan# needed to get credit for %usiness purchases fro$ plaintiff. Two co,owners of defendantJs co$pan# signed personal guarantees in fa'or of plaintiff. The credit application was refused %ut the plaintiff held on to the guarantees without signing the$. Two #ears later" the two co,owners sold their share of the %usiness. Defendant then o%tained credit fro$ plaintiff. Eight #ears after the guarantees were signed" the co$pan# %eca$e insol'ent. Plaintiff then signed the guarantees and atte$pted to enforce the$ upon the two prior co,owners for pa#$ent of defendantJs de%t. Issue, Held, Rule, 9hether personal guarantee of credit can %e %ound in perpetuit#. Affir$ed. There can %e no contract without an offer an acceptance.

Reason, The court held that there was no acceptance of the guarantees that would ha'e co$pleted the contract %etween the parties. Although the two co,owners wai'ed notice of the creditorJs acceptance" the court %elie'ed it was o%'ious that the e8tension of credit would ha'e %een $ade either at that ti$e" or in the near future. Howe'er" there was no credit contract set up at that ti$e. The fact that plaintiff held these docu$ents for > #ears indicates that plaintiff did not accept the$ for the purpose for which the# were intended. Further" plaintiff agreed to credit for defendant after the two guarantors sold their shares of the co$pan#. As such" the contract was with defendant" and not with the two co,owners. Further" the guarantees were not 'alid in perpetuit#. &mbrose v. $)$ Dodge, Inc. B=3 So.(d ??? /a. App. *rd Cir. 13>2&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff sued defendant %ecause his truc+ did not wor+ properl#. The parties reached a settle$ent. 9hile the settle$ent docu$ents had %een signed %# plaintiff" %ut not #et $ailed %ac+" plaintiff learned that defendant would not pa# off his loan. Plaintiff announced there was no deal and cancelled the signatures. Defendant alleged that it was res 1udicata" and filed an e8ception for sa$e. The trial court o'erruled this e8ception and the defendant appealed. -acts, Sa$e as histor#.

Issue, 9hether the clai$ was su%1ect to an e8ception of res 1udicata %ecause the plaintiff signed the docu$ents. Held, Affir$ed.

Rule, A written acceptance is recei'ed when it co$es into the possession of the addressee or of a person authori:ed %# hi$ to recei'e it" or when it is deposited in a place the addressee has indicated is the place for this or si$ilar co$$unications to %e deposited for hi$. According to the reception theor#" the acceptance of an offer ta+es place at the $o$ent its co$$unication reaches the offeror. Reason, The court held that in this case" the acceptance had to %e in writing. As it would ha'e had to ha'e %een recei'ed %# defendant to %e 'alid" it was not 'alid as it was not recei'ed. E'en though the signatures were placed on the docu$ents" the# were still in possession of the plaintiff" thus the settle$ent was not 'alid. .ver(tite Roofing Cor . v. Green >* So.(d ??3 /a. App. (nd Cir. 13BB&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff %rought suit for %reach of contract. Defendants denied that the contract was accepted %# plaintiff. The trial court sustained defendantJs argu$ent and dis$issed the suit. Plaintiff appealed. -acts, DefendantJs signed a contract for plaintiff to re,roof his residence. This was done on @,1=,B*. This set out the wor+ in detail" and indicated that the price was to %e paid in install$ents. A sales$an of plaintiff also signed the docu$ent %ut the sales$an was apparentl#

without authorit# to accept the contract on %ehalf of the plaintiff. The contract stated that it would %eco$e effecti'e with an acceptance of plaintiff or upon co$$encing perfor$ance of the wor+. The contract also indicated plaintiffJs address. As part of the contract" plaintiff had to chec+ defendantJs credit. This credit chec+ was done the da# after the contract was signed. The lender then appro'ed the financing on either @,1> or @,13. The ne8t da#" plaintiff o%tained all $aterials and went to defendantJs residence to do the wor+. .pon their arri'al" plaintiff saw that defendant had e$plo#ed another co$pan# to perfor$ the wor+. Defendant ad'ised the plaintiff that the# retained the alternate 'endor two da#s prior" and that plaintiffJs ser'ices were not needed. Issue, Held, 9hether plaintiff had accepted the ter$s of the contract. Re'ersed.

Rule, An offer proposes $a# %e withdrawn %efore its acceptance and that no o%ligation is incurred there%#. The power to create a contract %# acceptance of an offer ter$inates at the ti$e specified in the offer" or" if no ti$e is specified" at the end of a reasona%le ti$e. 9hat is reasona%le ti$e is a )uestion of fact depending on the nature of the contract proposed" the usages of %usiness and other circu$stances of the case which the offeree at the ti$e of his acceptance either +nows or has reason to +now. An offer is inco$plete as a contract until its acceptance and that %efore its acceptance the offer $a# %e withdrawn. Reason, The court noted that plaintiff" upon recei'ing the signed contract" i$$ediatel# %egan $a+ing preparations to co$plete the 1o%. The# chec+ed the credit" o%tained financing and ac)uired the $aterials. All of this was done in roughl# >,3 da#s. Defendants ne'er contacted plaintiff to notif# the$ of their intent not to ha'e plaintiff perfor$ the wor+. Since the contract indicated that acceptance was affected when the wor+ %egan" and did not specif# when the wor+ was to %egin" the court had to deter$ine a reasona%le ti$e. As plaintiff clearl# %egan ta+ing steps 1ust da#s after the contract" the court held that this was a reasona%le ti$e" and that 1udg$ent should %e in fa'or of plaintiff. Rodrigue v. Geb"ardt ?1@ So.(d 1@= /a. App. ?th Cir. 13>(&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff %rought this suit against defendant for %reach of contract. The trial court found that the contract was perfected and %reached %# defendant. Defendant appealed. -acts, Plaintiff put his house up for sale. 0n a written agree$ent" defendant offered to pa# 1==K for the house with a deposit of 1K in cash and a 3K de$and note. Plaintiff re1ected this" and $ade a counter offer of 1=BK with a deposit of BK in cash and BB== in a de$and note" with each part# to share discount points not to e8ceed three. This counter was to re$ain open until noon on 1,*1,>=. At 1:1Bp$ on 1,*1,>=" defendant sent another offer 'ia wire. That offer stated that defendant accepted agree$ent to purchase the ho$e for 1=BK. Howe'er" he indicated a deposit of (K in cash and >B== on de$and note. Further" each seller was to pa# one point. Defendant later refused to tender the deposit and the plaintiff filed suit. Issue, 9hether there was an acceptance of the offer.

Held, Rule, the offer.

Re'ersed. For a contract to %e for$ed" the acceptance $ust %e in all things confor$a%le to

An offer $ust %e accepted as $ade to constitute a contract. A $odification in the acceptance of an offer constitutes a new offer which $ust %e accepted in order to %eco$e a %inding contract. Reason, The court held that the plaintiff had to ha'e accepted defendantJs new offer for it to %eco$e %inding. There was no e'idence that this offer was accepted. Further" a contract to purchase realt# $ust %e in writing. As this was not the case" the court held in fa'or of defendant.

S anier v. De /oe
B( /a. Ann. B>1" (2 So. 12? 13==&

Facts 1. Action was %rought %# Spanier for the purpose of annulling an act of con'e#ance of i$$o'a%le propert# in Shre'eport. (. Plaintiff a'ers that defendants clai$ed to ha'e ac)uired the propert# %# deed dated <a# (=" 1>>= *. Plaintiff further a'ers that it is entirel# without consideration and that the docu$ent was not passed %efore a notar# and ( witnesses. ?. The deed was signed %# * witnesses and a co$$issioner fro$ /ouisiana. B. Testi$on# was allowed during the trial court phase to counter that the deed was an authentic act and not a pri'ate one. @. The trial court held that the donation in )uestion is null and 'oid" and entered 1udg$ent for the plaintiff as owner of said propert#. 0ssue 1. 9hether the deed was signed under pri'ate signature or authentic act4 (. 9as there proper cause consideration& for the sell of the land4 *. Did the transfer of i$$o'a%le propert# )ualif# as an actual sale or a donation4

Rule: Art. (?@? the price should not %e out of proportion with the 'alue of the thing for an act of sale.
SECT0-6 (,,-F THE F-R< -F D-6AT0-6S 06TER O0O-S Art. 1B*@. Donation of i$$o'a%les or incorporeals" for$ re)uired. An act shall %e passed %efore a notar# pu%lic and two witnesses of e'er# donation inter 'i'os of i$$o'a%le propert# or incorporeal things" such as rents" credits" rights or actions" under the penalt# of nullit#. Holding

The transfer of i$$o'a%le propert# was done under a donation inter 'i'os" and was disguised as a sale. There was no proper cause for the sale" and the donation is null for lac+ of for$ no authentic act&. DonEt need consideration in ci'ilian law.
Breau6 Bros. Construction Co. v. &ssociated Contractors, Inc. ((@ /a. 2(=" 22 So.(d 12 13B?&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff %rought this suit against defendant for %reach of an oral contract %etween the parties. The trial court held in fa'or of defendant and plaintiff appealed. -acts, The /afourche Police Mur# was soliciting %ids for e8ca'ation and re$o'al of a large a$ount of dirt. This 1o% entailed doing %oth dr# land wor+ and water wor+. Defendant was conte$plating %idding on this 1o%. -n *,?,B1" two officers of defendant corporation loo+ed at the proposed 1o% site. -n their wa# ho$e" the# $et !reau8" who was a $e$%er of the plaintiff partnership. As defendant did not ha'e e)uip$ent to do the water wor+" !reau8 indicated that he had that e)uip$ent and would %e interested in su%contracting this wor+. The parties re'iewed the plans that sa$e da#. !reau8 indicated that the portion of the wor+ that plaintiff would do was agreed upon at that ti$e. Howe'er" defendant denied this too+ place. There was to %e a su%se)uent $eeting of the parties on *,1?,B1. At the second $eeting" plaintiff indicated that defendantJs discussed the a$ount of their %id for the 1o%. !reau8 indicated that the# would su%$it a %id of G.1B@3 for each #ard of dirt. Further" !reau8 stated that plaintiff would accept that sa$e a$ount for all dirt $o'ed %# the$. 0t is at this point that !reau8 %elie'ed he had a finali:ed contract with defendant. Defendants denied there was a fir$ price agreed upon. Allegedl#" !reau8 had no +nowledge of defendantJs %id until it was opened and accepted. !reau8 then said he wanted the sa$e a$ount. DefendantJs then as+ed if !reau8 would split the %onding costs" which !reau8 declined to do. 6egotiations ter$inated at this point. There was testi$on# at trial fro$ !reau8 who ad$itted he thought that the# would e'entuall# sign a written contract for the$ to perfor$ the wor+. Issue, Held, 9hether there was a 'alid contract entered into %# the plaintiff and the defendant. Affir$ed.

Rule, 9here it has %een agreed %etween parties that an agree$ent shall %e reduced to writing" the contract is not co$plete until it is written and signed %# all the parties. 0t is ele$entar# in our law" that where the negotiations conte$plate and pro'ide that there shall %e a contract in writing" neither part# is %ound until the writing is perfected and signed. The distinction is $anifest %etween those cases in which there is a co$plete 'er%al contract" which the law does not re)uire to %e reduced to writing" and a su%se)uent agree$ent that it shall %e reduced to writing" and those in which" as in this case" it is a part of the %argain that the contract shall %e reduced to writing. Reason, The court held that in this case" the parties intended fro$ the 'er# %eginning to reduce their negotiations to a written contract. As such" neither part# was %ound until the

contract was written and signed %# %oth parties. As this did not ta+e place" there was no contract and the 1udg$ent was appealed. Barc"us v. 0o"nson 1B1 /a. 3>B" 3( So. B@@ 13((&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff sued defendant for specific perfor$ance of a contract. Defendant filed a no cause of action which was sustained. Plaintiff appealed. -acts, -n >,(1,12" plaintiff %ought an option to purchase so$e propert#. For GB=" he had the option for *= da#s. -n 3,1B,12" plaintiff telephoned the defendant to accept. -n 3,(>, 12" plaintiff then wrote defendant" and accepted the option. This was %e#ond the *= da# period. Issue, 9hether plaintiffJs acceptance of the contract to purchase i$$o'a%le propert# %# telephone was 'alid. Held, Rule, %e in writing. Affir$ed. All contracts relati'e to the transfer of i$$o'a%le propert# $ust

0t is apparent that an option to %u# or not to %u# i$$o'a%le propert# $ust %e e'idenced %# a written instru$ent" that the acceptance of the offer $ade in such instru$ent $ust %e e)uall# e'idenced %# writing" and that it $ust %e tendered to the proposer %efore the ti$e li$ited in the option has e8pired. Reason, The court held that according to the plaintiff" he onl# tendered his acceptance on 3,(>,12" which was > da#s after the e8piration of the ti$e within which the proposer had agreed to %eco$e %ound %# the acceptance. This was too late.

Succession of #a*rence
@B= So.(d *3> /a.App. * Cir. 133B&

Facts 1. Decedent had e8pressed during his life the intention of donating the $onies that he had deposited in a 1oint account to his nephew. (. .pon the death of the decedent" the other heirs contested the 'alidit# of the donation. Procedural: TC, found for Mones the recipient of re$unerati'e and onerous donations during the lifeti$e of /awrence" therefore the owner of the $one#. loo+ed at the ser'ices that were rendered for /awrence %# Mones o'er his lifeti$e.& Appeal Court re'ersed and said there was no donation inter 'i'os for lac+ of proof of ownership of the $one#" and lac+ed for$alities. 0ssue

9hether the transfer of the $one# in the accounts were donations inter vivos or donations mortis causa4 Rule: Art. 1B(?, defines onerous and re$unerati'e donations Art. 1B(@, onerous and re$unerati'e are not su%1ect to the rules and peculiars of donations inter 'i'os" e8cept when the 'alue of the o%1ect gi'en e8ceeds %# one,half that of the charges or of the ser'ices. Holding The transfer of the $one# was a donation inter vivos %ecause it constituted an inter vivos re$unerati'e and onerous donation. Mones had perfor$ed wor+ for /awrence and /awrence wanted to repa# hi$ for his wor+. Reasoning: The 'alue of the %an+ accounts did not e8ceed one,half that of the ser'ices that Mones rendered to /awrence o'er his lifeti$e" The rules of donati'e inter 'i'os do not appl# in this case.
Perry 0r. v. Perry Sr. B=2 So.(d >>1 /a. App. ?th Cir. 13>2&. This is an action to en1oin e8ecution of a prior 1udg$ent. &ction, Perr# Sr filed for a preli$inar# in1unction against the sei:ure of propert# alleging that the# wanted as co$pensation against their 1udg$ent" 'arious donations the# $ade to their son. The district court en1oined the e8ecution of the 1udg$ent pending a hearing to deter$ine the 'alue of the donations to %e offset against the 1udg$ent. Perr# Mr appealed. -acts, The parties are father and son. The father was a part owner of -gden,Perr# Theatres. -'er a period of #ears" the father ga'e the son a large a$ount of stoc+ in the co$pan#. 9hen the son %eca$e an attorne#" the father signed a written guarantee" prepared %# the son" %# which the co$pan# would %u# %ac+ the shares of stoc+. There was an initial pa#$ent of 1B=K" followed %# what was to %e $onthl# pa#$ents of BK each. A%out 2 #ears later" due to financial difficulties" the co$pan# ceased $a+ing pa#$ents and filed for %an+ruptc#. The son then sued his father as guarantor on t"e contract and recei'ed a 1udg$ent in his fa'or in the a$ount of G1@*"(?3.(>. 9hen the son was una%le to collect on the 1udg$ent" he had the sheriff sei:e propert# fro$ his parentJs ho$e including 1ewelr#" appliances and furniture. During the sei:ure the $other fainted and re)uired $edical attention. Issue, Held, 9hether donations can %e re'o+ed and utili:ed to offset a 1udg$ent de%t. Affir$ed.

Rule, 0n1uncti'e relief $a# issue prohi%iting the sale of propert# sei:ed under writ of fiere facias when su%se)uent to 1udg$ent" co$pensation has ta+en place. Art ((3>. Although the o%ligation clai$ed in co$pensation is unli)uidated" the court can declare co$pensation as to that part of the o%ligation that is suscepti%le of pro$pt and eas# li)uidation 5 Art 13=(.

Re'ocation on account of ingratitude can ta+e place if the donee has %een guilt# towards the donor of cruel treat$ent" cri$es or grie'ous in1uries. Art 1B@=. Reason, 0n this case" the court held that the son ha'ing directed the sheriff to sei:e his parents propert# constituted cruel treat$ent or grie'ous in1ur# within the $eaning of the code article. As such" the trial court was affir$ed. '"ielman v. Ga"lman 113 /a. *B=" ?? So. 1(* 13=2&. This is an action to reco'er real estate. &ction, Plaintiff" alleged to %e an heir of Nahl$an" %rought an action to reco'er a one, fifth interest in so$e real estate for$erl# owned %# Nahl$an. The trial court held in fa'or of defendant" recogni:ing defendant as owner of the propert#. Plaintiff appealed. -acts, Nahl$an ad'ised his nephew that in e8change for so$e propert#" Nahl$an wanted the nephew to care for hi$ for the rest of his life and %ur# hi$" when dead" with the condition that the uncle could still collect and en1o# the re'enue of the propert#. A docu$ent was signed shortl# thereafter" gi'ing the propert# to the nephew. A few $onths later" Nahl$an died. Howe'er" the nephew had cared for hi$ and paid his e8penses during his illness" and also %uried hi$ after his death. Issue, 9hether the contract is not 'alid as a sale due to uncertaint# of price. 9hether the contract is not 'alid as a donation inter 'i'os as there was no acceptance or deli'er# of the propert# and that the grantor retained the usufruct. Held, Affir$ed.

Rule, The donation shall" in no case" di'est the donor of all his propert#F he $ust reser'e for hi$self enough for his su%sistence. 0f the cause e8pressed in the consideration should %e one that does not e8ist" #et" the contract cannot %e in'alidated if the part# can show the e8istence of a true and sufficient consideration. Contracts where%# indi'iduals ha'e transferred propert# to others" %urdened with the charge that the# should %e $aintained during their li'es" ha'e heretofore %een dealt with as onerous donations. Reason, The court held that it was entirel# co$petent for Nahl$an to con'e# the propert# to his nephew in consideration of the o%ligation which the latter was shown to ha'e assu$ed" i.e. furnishing the uncle with a ho$e and caring for hi$. As far as the pa#$ent of G1" the court held that although it would ha'e %een insufficient under the law" the defendant has shown the e8istence of a true and sufficient consideration %# caring for the uncle. !ased on this" the 1udg$ent was affir$ed.

#ouisiana College v. 5eller

1= /a. 1@? 1>*@&

Facts

1. This was an action instituted %# the trustees of the /ouisiana College" esta%lished at Mac+son" to reco'er fro$ the defendant the su$ of fi'e hundred dollars" the a$ount of his su%scription to said college. (. The writing in )uestion set forth an agree$ent in which indi'iduals pledged to pa# a su$ of $one# to help esta%lish the college if it were esta%lished %# the /egislature in Mac+son" East Feliciana. The docu$ent clearl# stated" CIe8pressl# understood that no o%ligation is here%# created against the su%scri%ers" unless the said /egislature do esta%lish a college with an endow$ent" in the said town" at their ne8t session.D *. -n Fe%ruar# 1>" 1>(B" the /egislature passed a law to incorporate /ouisiana College in Mac+son" East Feliciana. ?. The defendant ha'ing failed and refused to pa# his said su%scription" on the 1>th of <arch" 1>*(" a for$al de$and was $ade on hi$ and a protest entered on instru$ent %# the parish 1udge" acting as notar# pu%lic for the non,pa#$ent. B. The defendant pleaded a general denialPthat he should not %e %ound %# the writing" and he clai$ed it to %e a nudu$ pactu$ na+ed pro$ise& that was gi'en without consideration. He further pleads the prescription of B #ears and that the writing has lapsed. @. DC rendered 1udg$ent in fa'or of /ouisiana College" and the defendant appealed. 2. Plaintiff contends that when the /egislature passed the act esta%lishing the college" the o%ligation of the defendant then %eca$e a%solute. >. Defendant contends that 1& the writing was i$perfect in o%ligation and could not %e enforced %# the courtsF (& 0t was without legal and sufficient consideration to render it 'alid and %indingF *& 0t did not %eco$e %inding on the $a+er" for want of acceptance of its conditions %# the part# to who$ it was $adeF and ?& There was no part# in e8istence capa%le of accepting or enforcing its conditions. 0ssue 9hether the writing agree$ent& had cause that created an o%ligation for defendant to pa# his pro$ised su$4 Holding 7es" the writing was freel# consented to" which allowed for cause" and created an o%ligation for defendant to pa# the pro$ised su$ to Plaintiff. The o%ligation was su%1ect to onl# one Rules 1. An o%ligation according to the Code is not the less %inding" though its consideration or cause is not e8pressed. (. 0n contracts of %eneficence" the intention to confer a %enefit is a sufficient consideration. Ba tist Hos ital v. Ca el
1(3 So. ?(B /a. App. (d Cir. 13*=&

Facts: 1. !aptist Hospital instituted this suit against Dr. M. T. Cappel for pa#$ent of a pledge he $ade towards the construction of a new nurseEs ho$e for the students of the 6urseEs Training School. (. !aptist Hospital decided to put on a ca$paign to raise funds %# appealing to the generosit# of the citi:ens of Ale8andria and surrounding co$$unities. *. Dr. M. T. Cappel signed a pledge card for GB==" to %e paid in ? install$ents of G1(B each. He paid the first install$ent and refused to pa# the re$aining *. ?. Cappel insists that %ecause the hospital was re)uired to $o'e the location of the new nurseEs ho$e" so$e ( $iles awa# fro$ the hospital" that the pledge was without consideration and charged error and fraud. Cappel further contends that he is relie'ed fro$ pa#ing his pledge for the reason that the ho$e was not %uilding within the ti$e it was represented to %e %uilt" that the ho$e was %uilt in a different location than originall# plannedF and that the ti$e in which it was to %e co$pleted are such as to relie'e hi$ fro$ lia%ilit#. B. DC rendered 1udg$ent in fa'or of plaintiff and defendant appealed. 0ssue 9hether or not the acts of the !aptist Hospital ha'e %een such" since the signing of the pledge card" to relie'e the defendant of lia%ilit#4 Holding 6o" the acts of the !aptist Hospital ha'e not %een such as to relie'e the defendant of lia%ilit#. Reasoning 0t was necessar# to secure another location" and the dut# of deciding on that location was upon the %oard of trustees of the hospital and not upon the su%scri%ers. There is no $erit in defendantEs contention that the ho$e was not co$pleted within the ti$e represented to hi$. Defendant does not show that an# %enefit he e8pected to recei'e fro$ the new nurseEs ho$e has %een in an# wa# lessened or that he has %een in an# wa# in1ured %# the change in plansF therefore he is %ound %# his pledge.

-lood v. '"omas
B <art. 6.S.& B@= /a. 1>(2&

Facts 1. (. *. ?. 0ssue 9hether there was sufficient cause which re)uired defendant to pa# re$aining %alance to plaintiff4 Holding 7es" there was sufficient cause which re)uired defendant to pa# re$aining %alance. Rule The de%t of another is sufficient consideration to support a contract of suret#" or a pro$ise to pa# it. D78rgenoy v. Dro9
1* /a. *>( 1>*3&

Defendant is sued on his pro$ise to pa# G@2>.21" due to the plaintiff %# /ee. Defendant pleaded want of consideration in the alleged pro$ise. Mudg$ent was rendered in DefendantEs fa'or" and plaintiff appealed. /ee ad$itted the de%t due %# hi$ to %e a%out GB==" %ut deposed he neither recollected nor %elie'ed the account was presented hi$ %# Sprigg.

Facts 1. PlaintiffEs ancestor and Ra$is entered into an agree$ent" notarial act" in which plaintiff purchased so$e land fro$ Ra$is" for what $ust ha'e %een an outrageous price in its ti$e 1>=2&. (. Decendents of Ra$is sold the land to defendant in 1>*@. *. Defendant ad'ertised the sale of the land. ?. Plaintiffs contended that the# were the true title holders. B. Heirs of Ra$is contend that she recei'ed the land as inheritance fro$ her father" and that the land had ne'er %een legall# 'ested to Plaintiffs. @. DC rendered 1udg$ent in fa'or of plaintiffs as the rightful owners" and defendant appealed.

0ssue 9hether the instru$ent was one of sale or donation4 0f it were a sale" was there sufficient cause4 0f there was not sufficient cause" was it a donation4 Holding The court held that the instru$ent was one of donation. Reasoning The donation" as long as it e8isted" is conclusi'e against the pretensions of the defendantF and unless it had %een set aside and rescinded" in an action instituted for that purpose" the defendant had no right to disregard it" %# atte$pting" as he has done" to sell the propert# which the plaintiffs possessed under it.

1nited States -idelity ) Guaranty Co. v. Crais

1(2 So. ?1? /a. App. -rl. Cir. 13*=&

Facts 1. Plaintiff and Canal Co$$ercial Trust and Sa'ings !an+ of 6ew -rleans had a contract in which plaintiff agreed to co'er the %an+ against an# losses resulting fro$ e$%e::le$ent %# its e$plo#ees. (. !an+ <anager" Mohnson" e$%e::led so$e G*="=== plus fro$ the %an+ and de'ised a plan to ease out. He gathered his friends to sign an agree$ent" which stated that the# would co'er the e8cess losses to the insurer in the e'ent that MohnsonEs li)uidated assets would not co'er the de%t owed to Plaintiff. *. MohnsonEs friends said that the# would sign the docu$ent if it insured that Mohnson would not face cri$inal charges for his actions. .SF;N said that it was not up to the$" %ut up to the District Attorne# as to whether or not Mohnson would face cri$inal charges. Friends signed the docu$ent an#wa#. ?. The friends" including the defendant" refused pa#$ent of the GB==. B. Plaintiff sues defendant for GB== on a contract alleged to ha'e %een entered into %etween the parties. @. Defendant ad$itted his signature" %ut denied lia%ilit# for want of 'alid or legal consideration. 2. Plaintiff concedes that a contract for restitution" supported onl# %# the consideration not to cri$inall# prosecute for e$%e::le$ent" is against pu%lic polic# and is illegal" null" and 'oid" %ut contends that the contract %etween itself and Canal was one of suret#ship and that" upon pa#$ent of the loss to the %an+" the suret# was su%rogated %# law to the rights of the %an+ against the e$%e::ler" and therefore" had the right to enter into an# agree$ents for the settle$ent of its

ci'il losses with Mohnson and his friends" and hence the agree$ent was supported %# a 'alid consideration. >. DC granted 1udg$ent in fa'or of .SF;N" and defendant appealed. 0ssue 9hether or not the contract is supported %# a 'alid consideration4 Holding 6o" the contract is not supported %# a 'alid consideration. Reasoning 0t is o%'ious that the defendant did not secure an# %enefit fro$ this contract. 0t is li+ewise clear that Mohnson did not secure an# %enefit fro$ it" unless it could %e said that he was not cri$inall# prosecuted" %ut such a consideration would %e contra bonos mores1" and therefore the contract would %e in'alid. The record shows that Mohnson was not discharged or released fro$ his o%ligation or an# part of it when the defendant signed the contract sued upon" and hence plaintiff did not surrender an# legal right which it $ight ha'e had against Mohnson. 0f plaintiff had released Mohnson" then the situation $ight %e different. Dissent: The suret# co$pan# could ha'e refused to settle with the assured for MohnsonEs shortages until receipt %# it of full proof in the usual for$. He thought full legal consideration was gi'en and recei'ed.
Car enter v. 2illiams ?(> So.(d 1*1? /a. App. *d Cir. 13>*&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff %rought this suit to enforce defendantJs specific perfor$ance of a contract to %u# plaintiffJs ho$e. Defendant recon'ened to o%tain a refund of his deposit. The trial court held in fa'or of defendant and the plaintiff appealed. -acts, Defendant li'ed in /afa#ette and dro'e to Ca$eron to wor+ for his e$plo#er" Transco. The e$plo#er ordered defendant to $o'e closer to his wor+. Defendant contracted to purchase plaintiffJs house" in order to co$pl# with his e$plo#erJs wishes. /ater" Transco rescinded its order" and defendant refused to purchase plaintiffJs house. Issue, 9hether the ter$ination of defendantJs cause to enter into the contract would $a+e the contract null and 'oid. Held, Affir$ed.

/at. Cagainst good $oralsD 5 -ffensi'e to the conscience and to a sense of 1usticeF 'oida%le contracts

Rule, Errors $a# e8ist as to all circu$stances and facts which relate to a contract" %ut it is not e'er# error that will in'alidate it. To ha'e that effect" the error $ust %e in so$e point" which was a principal cause for $a+ing the contract" and it $a# %e either as to the $oti'e for $a+ing the contract" to the person with who$ it is $ade" or to the su%1ect $atter of the contract itself. /a C.C. Art. 1>(*. Reason, The court held that the onl# cause 9illia$s had to %# the plaintiffJs house was the order of his e$plo#er. Apparentl#" t"e laintiff *as a*are of t"is. Thus" when Transco rescinded its order" the defendantJs cause of entering into the contract ceased to e8ist" and the contract %eca$e unenforcea%le. #osecco v. Gregory 1=> /a. @?>" *( So. 3>B 13=1&. This is an action for return of consideration due to a null contract. &ction, Plaintiff filed suit against defendant" see+ing to reco'er G?=== he had paid defendant for an orange crop. The trial court held in fa'or of plaintiff and defendant appealed. -acts, Plaintiff contracted to %u# the orange crops of defendant. Per the contract" the plaintiff would pa# G?K for the crops of 1>33" and G?K for the crops of 13==. The contract indicated that purchaser assu$es all ris+s. Three $onths later" the te$perature in 6ew -rleans dropped to 2 degrees a%o'e :ero" destro#ing the orchard. Plaintiff alleged that due to the destruction of the trees" there was no crop for hi$ to %u#" thus defendant owed the G?K %ac+ to plaintiff. Issue, Held, 9as this an aleator# dependant on uncertain contingencies& contract4 Affir$ed.

Rule, A contract is aleator# or ha:ardous when the perfor$ance of that which is one of its o%1ects depends on an uncertain e'ent. 0t is certain when the thing to %e done is supposed to depend on the will of the part#" or when in the usual course of e'ents it $ust happen in the $anner stipulated. 0f" during the lease" the thing %e totall# destro#ed %# an unforeseen e'entI.the lease is at an end. Reason, The court held that the contract called for the sale of the crops" not the trees. As the trees were destro#ed" the# did not #ield a crop" thus no contract. Further" the se'ere cold weather was an e8traordinar# e'ent" as the weather had not %een that cold for in e8cess of @= #ears. As it was so unli+el# for this weather to e8ist" it was li+el# not considered in the for$ation of the contract. As such" it was not an aleator# contract" %ut was a certain contract. The case then went up on rehearing. -n rehearing the court put $ore e$phasis on the fact that the contract said that plaintiff assu$es all ris+s. The# interpreted this to $ean that the purchaser" +nowing that the crop $ight ne'er $ateriali:e" paid cash" unconditionall#" for the crop. !# assu$ing all ris+s" that $eans he also assu$ed the ris+ of total failure. !ased on the rehearing" the court re'ersed" ordering the plaintiff to pa# the G?K.

!otes on re"earing, the purchaser was in the ha%it of %u#ing orange crops in ad'ance on a speculation" and that not infre)uentl# these crops had perished in cold weather. The purchaser prepaid without a word for its return on an# contingenc#. The dissent thin+s he assu$ed the ris+.
#amy v. 2ill 1?= So.(d 23? /a. App. ?th Cir. 13@(&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff sued defendant o'er a chec+ for G1*B that was not honored. The trial court held in fa'or of plaintiff and the defendant appealed. -acts, Plaintiff and defendant" who were friends" $et after wor+ at a %ar to pla# Lpo+er dice.L During the course of the night" defendant lost all of his $one#" and as+ed plaintiff for loans on nu$erous occasions. Plaintiff" through si8 separate loans" loaned defendant G1B=" ha'ing recei'ed a chec+ fro$ defendant for that a$ount. 9hen the ga$e finall# ended" plaintiff was %ro+e. Defendant had since won %ac+ his $one#. The ne8t da#" defendant ga'e plaintiff G1B" too+ %ac+ his chec+ for G1B=" and ga'e plaintiff a new chec+ for G1*B. Plaintiff then atte$pted to cash the chec+" %ut pa#$ent on the chec+ was refused %# the %an+. Issue, 9hether the a$ount clai$ed %# plaintiff is a ga$%ling de%t and therefore uncollecti%le %# court action. Held, Re'ersed.

Rule, The law grants no action for the pa#$ent of what has %een won at ga$ing or %# a %et" e8cept for ga$es tending to pro$ote s+ill in the use of ar$s" such as the e8ercise of the gun and foot" horse" and chariot racing. An o%ligation without cause" or with a false or unlawful cause" can ha'e no effect. The cause is unlawful" when it is for%idden %# law" when it is contra %onos $ores contrar# to $oral conduct& or to pu%lic order. Reason, The court held that the plaintiff" in order to collect" $ust ha'e %een wholl# unconnected with the ga$%ling acti'it#. As plaintiff was a participant in the ga$e" the transaction was part of the acti'it#" thus plaintiff is precluded fro$ $aintaining an action for reco'er#.

To %e a constitutionall# prohi%ited ga$%ling contract" howe'er" there $ust %e a $utual illegal intent to ga$%le and the intent of one part# not co$$unicated to or concurred in %# the other will not nullif# an agree$ent.
#auer v. Catalanotto B(( So.(d @B@ /a. App. Bth Cir. 13>>&. This is an action for %reach of contract.

&ction, Plaintiff sued defendant to enforce a contract. Defendant recon'ened for repa#$ent of a loan of G1*== $ade to plaintiff. The trial court held in fa'or of the defendant and the plaintiff appealed. -acts, Plaintiff alleged that he entered into a contract with the defendant where plaintiff would gi'e defendant G1="=== to engage in ga$%ling in Oegas. The# were to share the profits. Defendant and another witness testified that plaintiff as+ed to %orrow G1*== fro$ defendant as the# were going to lea'e the hotel. Apparentl#" plaintiff i$$ediatel# went to the %lac+1ac+ ta%le where he )uic+l# lost the $one#. Plaintiff ad$itted %orrowing the $one# to pla# dice" %ut clai$ed he signed a $ar+er to the hotel for that a$ount. He alleged that defendant was standing right %ehind hi$ when he as+ed for the $one#. Issue, prohi%ited. Held, 9hether plaintiffEs cause of action for reco'er# of ga$%ling de%ts is specificall# Affir$ed.

Rule, The law grants no action for the pa#$ent of what has %een won at ga$ing or %# a %et" e8cept for ga$es tending to pro$ote s+ill in the use of ar$s" such as the e8ercise of the gun and foot" horse and chariot racing. And as to such ga$es" the 1udge $a# re1ect the de$and" when the su$ appears to hi$ e8cessi'e. Courts ha'e so$eti$es refused to enforce pa#$ent of loans $ade %# a third part# to a ga$%ler" where the loan is clearl# for the purpose of ga$%ling or repa#ing a ga$%ling de%t and the lender was not an innocent %#stander. Reason, The court held that plaintiff si$pl# as+ed the defendant for the $one#F defendant was not in'ol'ed in the transaction for which plaintiff had re)uested the $one# whether it was to repa# the $ar+er or pla# %lac+1ac+&. Although plaintiff states there was nor for$al indication of the loan" the court held that the friendship of the parties $a+es such an infor$al loan 'er# credi%le. As such" the court found no $anifest error. $c$a"on v. Hardin 1(1 So. @2> /a. App. -rl. Cir. 13(3&. This is an action for %reach of contract. &ction, Plaintiff %rought this suit against defendants" who were hus%and and wife" to enforce a contract for hi$ to paid for ser'ices rendered. The trial court held that the contract was unenforcea%le as it was against pu%lic polic#. The plaintiff appealed. -acts, Plaintiff" who was a pri'ate detecti'e" sued the defendants for %reach of contract. Plaintiff was hired %# the wife to o%tain e'idence of the hus%andEs adulter#. At first" he was unsuccessful" and the wife sued for separation on the grounds of cruelt#. She then a%andoned this suit. 6ine $onths later" the wife again sued the hus%and as she recei'ed satisfactor# e'idence of her hus%andEs adulter# fro$ the plaintiff. The defendants were then di'orced" and were granted a separation of propert#. Plaintiff apparentl# was ne'er paid. He sued the wife since she was the one who hired hi$. He sued the hus%and %ecause he was the head and $aster of the for$er co$$unit# of the defendants" and was responsi%le for e8penses of wife o%taining the di'orce. Issue, 9hether a contract of this +ind is enforcea%le and not repugnant to pu%lic polic#.

Held,

Affir$ed.

Rule, Contracts to pa# for collecting or procuring testi$on# to %e used in e'idence" coupled with the condition that the contracteeEs right to co$pensation depends on the character of the testi$on# procured or upon the result of the suit in which it is to %e used" ha'e %een uni'ersall#" conde$ned %# the courts as contrar# to pu%lic polic#" for the reason that such agree$ents hold out an induce$ent to co$$it fraud or procure persons to co$$it per1ur#.
Reason, The court held that the# $ust loo+ with a +ind e#e upon the institution of $atri$on#. 0n doing so" this t#pe of contract $ust %e against pu%lic polic# as it would encourage indi'iduals to atte$pt to destro# so$ething that was intended to %e per$anent. Gravier:s Curator v. Carraby:s .6ecutor 12 /a. 11> 1>?1&. This is an action to reco'er pa#$ent for ser'ices rendered. &ction, Plaintiff" the curator of the estate of Nra'ior" sued the defendant see+ing to %e co$pensated %# defendant for the 'alue of propert# sold %# the$ to the detri$ent of Nra'ier. The trial court $ade a $onetar# award to the plaintiff and the defendant appealed. The defendant then filed an e8ception that the action of the plaintiff could not %e $aintained %ecause the contract was fraudulent" illegal and against pu%lic polic#. -acts, The plaintiff" curator of the estate of Nra'ier" indicated that Nra'ier $ade so$e si$ulated sales of propert# to Carra%#. Nra'ier was pressed for $one# and was facing se'eral 1udg$ents. Rather than ha'e the land sei:ed %# creditors" he $ade a sche$e with Carra%# that would transfer the land to hi$" %ut Nra'ier would still actuall# %e the owner. E'entuall#" Nra'ier a%andoned his affairs as %eing hopeless" and did not let it %e +nown that he owned that propert#. 0n 1>(@" Carra%# died and his %rother %elie'ed that the land was actuall# owned %# Carra%#. <ost of this propert# was then sold. Issue, 9hether the plaintiff had a cause of action against defendant since si$ulated sales of land to the defendant were fraudulent. Held, The e8ception was sustained.

Rule, 6o principle is %etter settled" than that no action can %e $aintained on a contract the consideration of which is either wic+ed in itself or prohi%ited %# law. How far this principle is to affect su%se)uent or collateral contracts the direct and i$$ediate consideration of which is not i$$oral or illegal" is a )uestion of considera%le intricac#" on which $an# contro'ersies ha'e arisen and $an# decisions ha'e %een $ade.
Reason, The court held that the defendants were $ade to appear to the world as the ownerJs of the propert#" thus the creditors of the plaintiff were una%le to sei:e the land. As the intent of the parties was fraudulent" the court held that the e8ception should %e sustained.

Herbert v. $cGuire ??2 So.(d @? /a. App. ?th. Cir. 13>?&. This is an action to reco'er pa#$ent for ser'ices rendered. &ction, Plaintiff" who was a ph#sician" sued the defendant" who was one of his patients" to reco'er the cost of a surger#. The trial court dis$issed the case and the plaintiff appeals. -acts, Plaintiff perfor$ed a surger# upon the defendant for a fee of G3==. According to the defendant" the plaintiff was to file her insurance clai$ in order for it to %e paid %# her carrier. !ecause plaintiff failed to do this" the insurer refused to pa# it at a later date. Issue, Held, 9hether defendant is entitled to a defense of detri$ental reliance. Re'ersed in part. Mudg$ent for plaintiff for G1BB.

Rule, 0f the pro$ise ca$e %efore the surger#" it was part of an enforcea%le contract. 0f the pro$ise ca$e after the surger# was incurred" it would %e a clearer case of a gratuitous pro$ise" as to which estoppel would reasona%l# appl#.
Reason, The court held that the trial 1udge was not $anifestl# erroneous in concluding that plaintiffEs %reach of pro$ise %# plaintiffEs e$plo#ee to ta+e care of the insurance clai$ caused defendant to suffer the loss of the insurance %enefit. Howe'er" the defendant onl# lost the %enefits of what her insurance would ha'e paid. She was still re)uired to pa# (=Q of the a$ount" less a G(B credit. .dinburg" v. .dinburg" B(* So.(d >3* /a. App. ?th. Cir. 13>>&. This is an action to reco'er pa#$ent for ser'ices rendered. &ction, The wife sued the hus%and to )uiet her title $a+e secure %# freeing fro$ disputeHlitigation in the house. The hus%and recon'ened for the 'alue of the ser'ices rendered during the $arriage %ased on the ownerJs pro$ise that the hus%and would %eco$e owner of a one,half interest in the house. The trial court held in fa'or of plaintiff and the defendant appealed. -acts, Plaintiff wife& and defendant hus%and& entered into an agree$ent with a ho$eowner na$ed Dorse#. Dorse#Js house was %adl# da$aged %# Hurricane !ets#. Per the agree$ent" the couple would repair the house and pa# the $ortgage. 0n return" Dorse# would lea'e the house the couple upon her death. Defendant perfor$ed the repairs on the house" and paid the $ortgage. Howe'er" the couple was then di'orced. After Dorse#Js death" she left the house to the plaintiff onl# Issue, 9hether the hus%and has a clai$ under detri$ental reliance.

Held, 7es. Re'ersed in part. Hus%and entitled to reco'er $one# he spent on the house upon reliance of Dorse#Js pro$ise.

Rule, 0n order to reco'er under the theor# of detri$ental reliance" a plaintiff $ust pro'e that: 1& a representation was $adeF (& 1ustifia%le reliance upon that representationF and *& a change in position of oneJs detri$ent %ecause of the reliance.
Reason, The court held that the defendant $et the re)uire$ents to reco'er under detri$ental reliance. !ased on Dorse#Js pro$ise to lea'e he and his wife the house" which was reduced to writing" he assu$ed certain responsi%ilities he was under no o%ligation to assu$e. As such" he is entitled to reco'er the $one# he spent on the house. 5et"ley v. Draug"on Business College, Inc. B*B So.(d B=( /a. App. (d. Cir. 13>3&. This is an action to 'oid a contract" and for da$ages related to the contract. &ction, Plaintiff filed suit against defendant %ased on a lac+ of consideration for additional e$plo#$ent duties. The trial court rescinded the contract and granted the plaintiff da$ages. -acts, Plaintiff was a teacher at defendantEs college. Defendant re)uested that the plaintiff teach another class. After plaintiff recei'ed his first chec+" he reali:ed he was not %eing paid for the additional wor+. Issue, 9hether plaintiff is entitled to da$ages related to the contract.

Held, The court held that plaintiffEs reco'er# $ust %e in for$ of da$ages rather than specific perfor$ance.

Rule, Art. 13@2 protects plaintiffEs reliance when he +new or should ha'e +nown that the pro$ise would induce the other part# to rel# on it to his detri$ent and the other part# was reasona%le in so rel#ing.
Reason, The court held that the a%o'e Art. 0ncorporates detri$ental reliance as an additional %asis for enforcea%ilit# of o%ligations. Further" this allows either specific perfor$ance or da$ages to the disappointed pro$isee. $artin v. Sc"lunt9 B>3 So.(d 1(=> /a. App. ?th. Cir. 1331&. This is an action to 'oid a contract" and for da$ages related to the contract. &ction, Plaintiff %rought this suit against defendant for %reach of contract and da$ages. The trial court held that there was no contract %etween the parties" and that the legal presu$ption was that the lease agree$ent was an oral $onth,to,$onth lease. The trial court also awarded her G12B in da$ages. Plaintiff appealed. -acts, Plaintiff owned so$e i$$o'a%le propert# in 6ew -rleans. 0n April of 13>2" defendant spo+e with the plaintiff a%out leasing the pre$ises. Defendant re)uested a rent reduction G?B= '. GB==& for a longer lease" to which plaintiff agreed. This was done orall#. Defendant later notified plaintiff of his intent to 'acate in August of 13>2" %ringing the length of

his occupanc# to three $onths. 9hen he $o'ed out" the pre$ises were unsanitar# and da$aged. 0t should %e noted that the written lease was ne'er signed. 0n fact" plaintiff" who was a law student" states that while she continued to re)uest defendant sign the lease" she ne'er prepared one. Issue, 9hether there was a contract %etween the parties %ased on the oral agree$ent. 9hether plaintiff is entitled to da$ages for detri$ental reliance. 9hether plaintiff is entitled to da$ages for %reach of the lease agree$ent. Affir$ed.

Held,

Rule, /SA C.C.Art. 13@2 5 A part# $a# %e o%ligated %# a pro$ise when he +new or should ha'e +nown that the pro$ise would induce the other part# to rel# on it to his detri$ent and the other part# was reasona%le in so rel#ing. Reco'er# $a# %e li$ited to the e8penses incurred or the da$ages suffered as a result of the pro$iseeEs reliance on the pro$ise. Reliance on the gratuitous pro$ise $ade without re)uired for$alities is not reasona%le. The essential ele$ents to state a detri$ental reliance theor# of reco'er# in /ouisiana are: 1& representation %# conduct or wordF (& 1ustifia%le reliance thereonF and *& a change of position to oneEs detri$ent %ecause of the reliance.
Reason, The court held that there was no contract %etween the parties as there was ne'er an#thing signed. !ased on the oral agree$ent" the court applied the legal presu$ption that the lease was $onth,to,$onth. She got da$ages for the cleaning" detri$ental reliance" and the rent reduction for a total of (2B. Service -inance Co. of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Daigle *?( So.(d 113( /a. App. 1st Cir. 1322&. This is an action see+ing recognition of a chattel $ortgage. &ction, Plaintiff filed this see+ing recognition of a chattel $ortgage. Defendant set up discharge in %an+ruptc# as a defense to the $ortgage. The trial court held in fa'or of defendant and the plaintiff appealed. -acts, Defendant owed plaintiff a de%t. Defendant filed %an+ruptc#" and plaintiff was properl# notified. Two e$plo#ees of plaintiff then spo+e with defendant who indicated that he was going to continue to pa#. !ased on these co$$ents" the plaintiff too+ no acti'e role in the %an+ruptc# proceedings and did not file a proof of clai$. Plaintiff then onl# recei'ed two $ore pa#$ents. The# filed suit for the re$ainder. Issue, Held, 9hether there was a new pro$ise of the defendant to pa# the de%t. Affir$ed. 6o onl# $oral o%ligation" not enforcea%le.

Rule, 0n order to re'i'e a lia%ilit# on a de%t discharged in %an+ruptc# or to create a new enforcea%le o%ligation" there $ust %e an e8press pro$ise to pa# the specific de%t" $ade to the creditor or his agent" and while no particular for$ of language is necessar#" to constitute such a new pro$ise there $ust %e a clear" distinct" and une)ui'ocal recognition and renewal of the de%t

as a %inding o%ligation" an#thing short thereof %eing insufficient" as" for e8a$ple" the $ere ac+nowledg$ent of the discharged de%t" or the e8pression of hope" desire" e8pectation" or intention to pa# or re'i'e the sa$e. .nless otherwise pro'ided %# statute" an enforcea%le pro$ise to pa# a discharged de%t $a# %e $ade orall#. The pro$ise $ust" howe'er" %e either e8press or directl# i$plied in the ter$s usedF it cannot %e i$plied si$pl# fro$ conduct recogni:ing the de%t" for e8a$ple" fro$ a pa#$ent on account of either principal or interest. 6o particular for$ of words need %e used pro'ided the pro$ise is clear" distinct" and une)ui'ocal" and is constituted of words which in their natural i$port identif# the de%t and e8press a present intention on the part of the %an+rupt to %ind hi$self to its pa#$ent . A si$ple ac+nowledg$ent of the 1ustness of a de%t and of its present e8istence as a de%t for$erl# contracted and now unpaid" or the e8pression of a hope" desire" e8pectation" or intention to pa#" is not sufficient. 6or is the effect of a discharge a'oided %# a pro$ise to do so$ething other than pa# the discharged de%t.

Stoll v. Goodnig"t Cor oration

?@3 So.(d 1=2( /a. App. (d Cir. 13>B&

Facts 1. Plaintiff" e$plo#ed %# the defendant as a tra'el counselor" in pa#$ent of an airline tic+et" accepted fro$ a third person a chec+ with a forged endorse$ent" which was in 'iolation of her e$plo#$ent $anual. (. The $anual re)uired that an e$plo#ee consult a $anager when in dou%t a%out an# chec+ transaction. *. The chec+ was returned unpaid" and plaintiff was told that Cit would %e to her ad'antageD if she rei$%ursed the co$pan# through deductions fro$ her pa#chec+. ?. Plaintiff rei$%ursed the co$pan# through deductions and ( wee+s after" was dis$issed. B. Plaintiff sued to reco'er the a$ount paid as rei$%urse$ent. @. DC rendered 1udg$ent for defendant stating that plaintiff freel# paid under a natural o%ligation. 0ssue 9hether the pa#$ent was $ade under a natural o%ligation or under coercion fro$ her e$plo#er4 Holding Plaintiff Rs pa#$ent was $ade under a natural o%ligation. Rule A natural o%ligation of this sort has %een recogni:ed in French doctrine to support 'oluntar# pa#$ent to co'er da$age to another where the loss occurred without fault of the natural o%ligor or where it is not clear whether the natural o%ligor would %e ci'ill# responsi%le.

A natural o%ligation cannot %e enforced %# 1udicial action" %ut once a de%tor recogni:es and freel# perfor$s in response to a natural o%ligation" she cannot reco'er or reclai$ what she has done or paid. Anal#sis: The fear of losing her 1o% was not sufficient to render her decision to pa# the loss wither erroneuous or in'oluntar# and not freel# perfor$ed within the $eaning of the CC to allow her reco'er#.

Hic%s v. Hic%s
1?B /a. ?@B" >( So. ?1B 1313&

Facts 1. Plaintiffs" the si%lings of defendant" clai$ that certain notes were re$itted %# deceased parent to defendant are 'oid for want of for$ as a donation. (. Defendant sa#s the# are a re$ission which does not re)uire an authentic act" thus the# are 'alid. *. Deceased $other had deli'ered * of the @ notes which were re$itted. ?. Decedent then too+ these * notes %ac+ and wrote CCancelled for ser'ices rendered to $e which 0 ac+nowledged as the e)ui'alent of cash.D B. DC rendered 1udg$ent for plaintiff and defendant appealed to the portion of the 1udg$ent declaring that certain $ortgage notes held %# hi$ constituted a donation $ade %# his $other to hi$" and that it was 'oid for want of for$. 0ssue 9hether the act was a donation" which re)uired a certain for$" or was it a $ere o%ligation to pa# for ser'ices rendered4 Rule: Art. (133: The re$ission of the de%t is either con'entional" when it is e8pressl# granted to the de%tor %# a creditor either ha'ing the capacit# to alienate" or tacit" when the creditor 'oluntaril# surrenders the title under pri'ate signature which esta%lishes the o%ligation. Holding The act was a $ere o%ligation" which did not re)uire a certain for$. The notes which she surrendered to hi$ were the original titles under pri'ate signatutre which esta%lished the o%ligations represented %# the$. Hurley v. Hurley
1?@ /a. **2" >* So. @?* 13(=&

Facts 1. Plaintiff allegedl# sold land to Defendant his son&. (. Plaintiff then too+ the note fro$ defendant on the condition that if the son would ta+e care of hi$ for the rest of his life" he would cancel the note. *. Defendant cared for plaintiff for * $onths until the two had a Cfalling outD" and defendant $ade threatening re$ar+s against plaintiff. ?. Plaintiff sued defendant as+ing that the note %e declared null" ha'ing %een without consideration and not %# authentic act" and that plaintiff re'o+es said gift and a'ers that it should %e decreed that the note %e returned to hi$ and the $ortgage reinstated. B. DC dis$issed the suit on sustaining defendantEs no cause of action" and plaintiff appeals. 0ssue 9hether the act was an onerous donation" which re)uired the defendant to perfor$ certain acts in return for the donation4 Holding 7es" the act was an onerous donation and defendant failed to co$pl# with the conditionsF thus the e8ception is o'erruled and re$anded to district court for further proceedings. Reasoning The petition therefore sets out an onerous donation" with no inti$ation of an intention on the part of the donor to $a+e a free gift or to re$it the de%t represented %# the note thus donated" sa'e on co$pliance in full" %# the donee" with the condition i$posed upon and accepted %# hi$F and it alleges the failure of the donee to co$pl# with the condition" and conduct on his part utterl# inconsistent with such co$pliance. 0amison v. #udlo*
* /a.Ann. ?3( 1>?>&

Facts 1. Defendants were inde%ted to plaintiffs for G1@>=.*=. (. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agree$ent" in which the defendant agreed to pa# S of the a$ount and the other S was released. *. Plaintiff now sues to reco'er the other S %ecause he clai$s to %e induced %# false representation of defendant and a new pro$ise to pa# %# the defendant. ?. DC ruled in fa'or of defendant and plaintiff appeals. 0ssue 9hether a new agree$ent e8isted for pa#$ent of the de%t4

Holding 7es" a new agree$ent e8isted %ecause of parol e'idence %# a plaintiff witness. Rule The rule which for%ids oral e'idence to contradict or 'ar# the ter$s of a written contract" is not infringed %# the ad$ission of oral e'idence to pro'e a new and distinct agree$ent. A de%t prescri%ed in'ol'es no legal lia%ilit#" #et a new pro$ise to pa# it without a new consideration is %inding. Reasoning 0f there was such a pro$ise" it did not re)uire a new pecuniar# consideration. Although an inde%tedness %e released upon the pa#$ent of a part" there still su%sists such a natural o%ligation on the part of the de%tor thus relie'ed %# the $erc# of the creditor" as would estop the de%tor fro$ reco'ering %ac+ if he paid" or for$ a sufficient consideration for a new pro$ise. $eyers v. &cme Homestead &ss7n
1*> So. ??* /a. App. -rl. Cir. 13*1&

Facts 1. (. *. ?. B. @. Issues 9hether the plaintiff can reser'e his rights and accept the chec+ as pa#$ent4 9hether there had %een an accord and satisfaction or in /a. Ter$s 5 transaction and co$pro$ise4& Holding Plaintiffs are withdrawing as shareholders fro$ the defendantEs ho$estead association. Plaintiffs want the di'idends for the 1? $onth period %etween the notice of withdrawal and the pa#$ent. Defendants sa# the ho$esteadEs %#,laws pre'ent di'idends fro$ %eing earned during that period. 0n the alternati'e" plaintiff sa#s if defendant had followed its own %#,laws the# would ha'e still earned di'idends during the period. Defendant sa#s it doesnEt $atter %ecause plaintiff cashed the chec+ which the ho$estead issued. DefendantEs chec+ was issued Cpaid in fullD and plaintiff endorsed the chec+ Call rights reser'edD

Plaintiff cannot reser'e his rights and accept the chec+F therefore" once plaintiff accepts the chec+" he has wai'ed his rights. There had %een an accord and satisfaction and the consideration was the satisfaction which ca$e fro$ the putting an end to litigation and fro$ the ter$ination of the dispute.
R'# Cor oration v. $anufacturers .nter rises ?(3 So.(d >BB /a. 13>*&. This is an action to reco'er a disputed %alance of a pa#$ent due under an oral contract. -acts, !en Coo+" the $anager of defendant" arranged a lease of two large cranes fro$ plaintiff. The oral agree$ent fi8ed the hourl# rate for the rental" as well as dail# usage. Howe'er" other details of the calculation of rent were not fi8ed. -n the sa$e da# that the agree$ent was $ade" the cranes were deli'ered. During the construction pro1ect" plaintiffEs wor+ers +ept records of the wor+" o%taining signatures of defendantEs super'isors for 'erification. After the 1o%" plaintiff sent defendant a %ill for G1?*"=1@.3*. Defendant contested the a$ount of the in'oice" specificall# noting se'eral disputed ite$s. Plaintiff re)uested that defendant pa# the a$ount that was not disputed" and that the# would wor+ it out later. Defendant then sent plaintiff a chec+ for the non,disputed a$ount %ut included the wording Cpa#$ent in full for crane rentalsD on the chec+. .pon receipt" plaintiffs contacted defendant and contested this language. Allegedl#" defendant either agreed that it would %e a partial pa#$ent" or said nothing. Plaintiff then negotiated the chec+. Defendant refused to pa# the %alance and plaintiff filed suit. Procedural History, Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for the unpaid %alance. Defendant answered" alleging that the full de%t was paid. The trial court dis$issed the suit without assigning reasons. The court of appeals affir$ed" reasoning that the pa#$ent e8tinguished the de%t. Plaintiff appealed. Issue, 9hether the deposit %# RT/ of a chec+ tendered to it in full pa#$ent of a pre, e8isting o%ligation operated to e8tinguish the entire de%t. Holding, Re$anded to the court of appeal for deter$ination of the reasona%leness of the disputed charges" and enforce$ent of the contract. Rule, A contract is the law %etween the parties and it cannot %e re'o+ed" unless %# $utual consent of the parties" or for causes ac+nowledged %# law. 9hen a dispute arises %etween the parties to a contract as to its pro'isions" the# $a# %# further $utual consent freel# $odif# their contract. Persons $a# enter a contract of transaction or co$pro$ise to ad1ust their differences %# $utual consent for the purpose of pre'enting or putting an end to a lawsuit. Reason, The court held that the lower court failed to consider the intent of the parties when the pa#$ent was $ade and deposited. Although defendant alleged that plaintiff accepted the pa#$ent" testi$on# clearl# indicates that the# did not. Further" defendant indicates that he $a# ha'e re$ained silent on the dispute. E'en if defendant was silent" his silence reasona%l# i$plies his assent to the proposal. Additionall#" the su%se)uent negotiations on the re$aining areas in dispute e'idence the fact that the# did not consider the chec+ as the final pa#$ent. As such" defendant withdrew its condition of co$pro$ise when the# allowed plaintiff to consider the pa#$ent as partial pa#$ent of the de%t.

8il City Realy v. Bordelon B(? So.(d >?> /a. App. *d Cir. 13>>&. This is an action for %reach of contract. -acts, The !ordelons placed their ho$e n the $ar+et for sale. The Kopic+is" searching for a ? %edroo$ ho$e or a * %edroo$ that could %e con'erted" %eca$e interested in the !ordelon ho$e. !efore signing the purchase agree$ent" the Kopic+is $ade arrange$ents with a contractor a%out ha'ing an addition put on the !ordelonJs ho$e. -n B,(@,>*" the parties entered into a contract to %u# and sell the propert# for G1*?.BK. The sale was to %e closed within *= da#s. A few da#s %efore the act of sale" the Kopic+is found out that the propert#" which was on a corner lot" was %urdened %# a ser'itude that e8tended *= feet into the lot. This ser'itude would not allow the addition to %e %uilt. After learning of this" the Kopic+is refused to close on the house. 1B $onths later" the !ordelonJs did find another %u#er" %ut that sale was G12.BK less than the agreed upon price of the Kopic+iJs. Procedural History, !ordelon filed suit against Kopic+i for failure to perfor$ the sale" and for the difference in the sales price of the ho$e. The !ordelonJs were awarded G1>">1@.*= and the Kopic+iJs appeal. Issue, error. Holding, 9hether the Kopic+is had the right to in'alidate the contract to sell %ecause of Affir$ed.

Rule, 0n order to in'alidate a contract due to error" the error $ust relate to the principal cause for $a+ing the contract and the other part# $ust either +now or %e presu$ed to +now of this principal cause. Error $a# concern a cause when it %ears on the nature of the contract" or the thing is the contractual o%1ect or a su%stantial )ualit# of that thing. Reason, The court noted that the Kopic+is testified that the# though the lot was free of ser'itudes. 0f so" it was different than what the# thought. Howe'er" the Kopic+is ne'er told the !ordelons of their intent to e8pand" nor did the# tell the$ that the# would onl# %u# the ho$e if it could %e e8panded. As such" the court held that the !ordelons are entitled to 1udg$ent. 8il City Realty v. Bordelon B(? So.(d >?> /a. App. *d Cir. 13>>&. This is an action for %reach of contract. -acts, The !ordelons placed their ho$e on the $ar+et for sale. The Kopic+is" searching for a ? %edroo$ ho$e or a * %edroo$ that could %e con'erted" %eca$e interested in the !ordelon ho$e. !efore signing the purchase agree$ent" the Kopic+is $ade arrange$ents with a contractor a%out ha'ing an addition put on the !ordelonJs ho$e. -n B,(@,>*" the parties entered into a contract to %u# and sell the propert# for G1*?.BK. The sale was to %e closed within *= da#s. A few da#s %efore the act of sale" the Kopic+is found out that the propert#" which was on a corner lot" was %urdened %# a ser'itude that e8tended *= feet into the lot. This ser'itude would not allow the addition to %e %uilt. After learning of this" the Kopic+is refused to close on the

house. 1B $onths later" the !ordelonJs did find another %u#er" %ut that sale was G12.BK less than the agreed upon price of the Kopic+iJs. Procedural History, !ordelon filed suit against Kopic+i for failure to perfor$ the sale" and for the difference in the sales price of the ho$e. The !ordelonJs were awarded G1>">1@.*= and the Kopic+iJs appeal. Issue, error. Holding, 9hether the Kopic+is had the right to in'alidate the contract to sell %ecause of Affir$ed.

Rule, 0n order to in'alidate a contract due to error" the error $ust relate to the principal cause for $a+ing the contract and the other part# $ust either +now or %e presu$ed to +now of this principal cause. Error $a# concern a cause when it %ears on the nature of the contract" or the thing is the contractual o%1ect or a su%stantial )ualit# of that thing. Reason, The court noted that the Kopic+is testified that the# thought the lot was free of ser'itudes. 0f so" it was different than what the# thought. Howe'er" the Kopic+is ne'er told the !ordelons of their intent to e8pand" nor did the# tell the$ that the# would onl# %u# the ho$e if it could %e e8panded. The !ordelonEs did not ha'e an# reason to +now that the principal cause of %u#ing the ho$e was to e8pand it. As such" the court held that the !ordelons are entitled to 1udg$ent.

Cal"oun v. 'eal
1=@ /a. ?2" *= So. (>> 13=1&

Facts 1. Teal purchased fro$ Calhoun a tract of land that was purported to %e (B= acres. (. 0n the contract" Calhoun re)uested that if the land ac)uired %# Teal was $ore than (B= acres" that he pa# her G2 per acre for each acre o'er (B=. *. Teal had the propert# sur'e#ed and the sur'e# showed 13>.@B acres" which was deficient of the (B= pro$ised in the purchase. ?. Teal ac)uired so$e old 1udg$ents operating on the propert# and too+ legal steps to reali:e the$. B. The parties settled at which point Calhoun con'e#ed a tract of land to $a+e up the difference. @. Teal then sold the land to <.E. Swafford" for G("*@?. 2. 0t was then found that the sur'e#or had $ade a $ista+e in calculating the si:e of the propert#. >. Calhoun sued Teal for the profit he had $ade on the B= acres she had con'e#ed to hi$ to settle their initial dispute. 0ssue 9hether Calhoun had the right to sue for the reco'er# of the land %ecause of an error $ade %# the sur'e#or4

Rule: C$ista+en %elief in the e8istence of that which has noneD CC 1>(1 Holding: Affir$ed&7es" Calhoun $a# sue for error Reasoning This error was the principal cause for $a+ing the contract" and %ore upon the $oti'e for $a+ing it. She is entitled to %e relie'ed fro$ the conse)uences of her act thus %rought. And it does not affect the case that Teal hi$self acted in good faith" and had not profited a dollar in the $atter. Teal has profited fro$ the con'e#ance of the 50 acres. He $ust return the propert# or pa# Calhoun the 'alue of it.

2ilson v. #evy
(*? /a. 213" 1=1 So.(d (1? 13B>&

Facts 1. Suit was instituted %# 9ilson for the reco'er# of *= and 1H* acres of a **= acre tract of land sold %# /e'#. (. Defendant a'erred that she neither intended to sell" nor did the plaintiff intend to %u# the propert# in contro'ers#F that its inclusion in the description in the deed was con'e#ed to 9ilson %# a $utual error" $ista+e" and inad'ertence. *. Defendant as+ed that the deed %e refor$ed to e8clude the disputed acreage. ?. The DC rendered 1udg$ent for /e'# and refor$ed the deed as pra#ed for. 0ssue 9hether the defendant $a# reco'er the disputed tract of land %ecause she said it was sold %# $utual error" $ista+e" and inad'ertence4 Holding The error or $ista+e $ust %e $utual " the %urden is on the one see+ing the refor$ation to pro'e the error and he $ust carr# the %urden %# clear and the strongest possi%le proof. 7es" the defendant $a# reco'er the disputed tract of land Saunders v. !e* 8rleans Public Serv., Inc.
*>2 So.(d @=* /a. App. ?th Cir. 13>=&

Facts 1. Plaintiff sustained in1uries while on a cit# %us operated %# defendant.

(. Plaintiff was e8a$ined %# the co$pan#Es $edical depart$ent" at which point" the doctor diagnosed a $inor contusion of the shoulder which would %e resol'ed in one wee+. *. Defendant offered plaintiff G1== to settle the case" and plaintiff accepted. ?. 0t was alleged %# the plaintiff that the doctor did not conduct a thorough $edical e8a$" and the parties would not ha'e settled for G1== had a proper e8a$ination %een perfor$ed" or had +nown a%out the plaintiffEs true condition. B. DC awarded plaintiff G("3== and defendants appealed. 0ssue 9hether the contract for co$pro$ise %etween plaintiff and defendant was in'alid %ased on the possi%ilit# of an i$proper $edical e8a$ination4 Holding 7es" the contract for co$pro$ise was in'alid %ased on the possi%ilit# of an i$proper $edical e8a$ination. Rules Co$pro$ises are fa'ored in law and the %urden of pro'ing in'alidit# of a co$pro$ise is on the part# attac+ing the contract. See Pin+ on pg. (?? Reasoning The principal cause of $a+ing the contract of co$pro$ise was the fact" relied on %# %oth parties on the %asis of the $edical diagnosis" that the plaintiffEs in1ur# was a si$ple $inor contusion. The court agrees that one could reasona%l# suppose that the parties would not ha'e consented to the co$pro$ise for G1== if the co$plete and accurate diagnosis had %een stated. #yons $illing Co. v. Cusimano
1@1 /a. 13>" 1=> So. ?1? 13(@&

Facts 1. Defendant ordered a carload of CTelegra$D flour" free on %ill fro$ plaintiffEs $ill in /#ons" Kansas. (. Plaintiff" %elie'ing that the defendant onl# wanted CTelegra$D flour" regardless of its origin" sent a carload fro$ its plant in Hudson" Kansas. *. .pon learning of the origin of the flour" defendant refused the ship$ent %ecause the flour did not ha'e the e8act a$ount of gluten needed for the production of its $acaroni.

?. Plaintiff sued to reco'er the price of the flour. B. DC rendered 1udg$ent for the defendant" and plaintiff appealed. 0ssue 9hether the $ista+e %# the plaintiff in'alidates the contract4 Holding 7es it was in'alidated %ecause the su%stance of the defendant was in good faith and specificall# order the flour for$ the /#ons <ill. The defendant is not o%ligated to pa# the plaintiff. Rule Art. 1>?( declares that an error with regard to a thing that is the su%1ect of a contract does not in'alidate the contract" unless the error %ears upon the su%stance or so$e su%stantial )ualit# of the thing. 8uac"ita &C v. Pierce -acts: Plaintiff installed an A$ana condenser unit into the defendantEs ho$e and defendant refused to pa# hi$ %ecause he had ordered a 7or+ unit. Defendant ne'er stated that he was e8pecting a 7or+ unit to %e installed and the plaintiff ne'er told hi$ what t#pe of unit he was installing into his ho$e. Defendant called Plaintiff when he saw that the unit was an A$ana and told hi$ to co$e pic+ up the A$ana unit" and P refused. D went out and %ought a new 7or+ unit. The parties could not agree on an additional cost and who should %ear it. Procedural: The trial 1udge re1ected the de$ands of %oth parties" case dis$issed. Plainitff appealed and defendant ne'er appealed or answered. Issue: was there a unilateral $ista+e or $utual $ista+e as to the su%stance of the contract to hold the K in'alid4 Rule: Art. 1>?B Holding: Affir$ed Reasoning: The court sa#s that the case falls under art. 1>?B" in that there was error of fact as to the )ualit# of the o%1ect" that is the $anufacturer of the unit and that this )ualit# was a principal cause of the K fro$ the DEs standpoint. Although" /awler was in good faith" he was confronted with a 7or+ s#ste$ in which a $a1or co$ponent needed replacing and he should ha'e %een aware that the %u#er would e8pect the sa$e %rand of unit.

Deutsc"mann v. Standard -ur Com any, Inc.

**1 So.(d (13 /a. App. ?th Cir. 132@&

Facts 1. (. Plaintiff placed an order with defendant for a fur coat to %e $ade with furs running hori:ontall#F fe$ale )ualit#F not pieced togetherF and that the furs %e of the sa$e width as the furs selected %# her fro$ a $odel coat at Standard Fur. Plaintiff testified that she refused to accept the coat %ecause: a. The s+ins of the coat were wider than the s+ins of the $odel coatF %. The hori:ontal s+ins were not continuous" %ut pieced togetherF and c. 0n Rletting out the s+insE" the pelts had %een sliced and sewn %ac+ together rather than stretched. The coat was returned to the 6ew 7or+ furrier for alterations" %ut the plaintiff returned the coat for a second ti$e and re)uested the return of her deposit. Defendant refused return of the deposit and plaintiff filed suit.

*. ?. 0ssue

9hether consent was lac+ing on the part of the purchaser4 Holding 7es" consent was lac+ing on the part of the purchaser %ecause the defendant failed to infor$ the purchaser of his ina%ilit# to perfor$ her re)uested order" which resulted in error in the cause for $a+ing the agree$ent. Rule -ur 1urisprudence is well settled that a contract $a# %e in'alidated for a unilateral error as to a fact which was the principal cause for $a+ing the contract" where the other part# +new or should ha'e +nown it was the principal cause. Error as to the nature of a contract $a# %e with regard to either the su%stance or the o%1ect of the agree$ent" or su%stantial )ualit# of the o%1ect" or so$e other )ualit# of the o%1ect if such )ualit# is the principal cause of $a+ing the contract. Reasoning The court reasoned that <r. A%el was an e8pert and he was aware that Standard Fur was una%le to deli'er to the plaintiff that which she thought she had ordered. 0t was his responsi%ilit# to co$$unicate to plaintiff infor$ation" which clearl#" would ha'e a'oided confusion. A%el failed to do so. His lac+ of co$$unication caused the $isunderstanding on the part of plaintiff" resulting in the error of fact on the part of the purchaser which was a principal cause for $a+ing the agree$ent. $arcello v. Bussiere

(>? So.(d >3( /a. 132*&

Facts 1. Defendants agreed to purchase a %ar fro$ plaintiff for G@"B==" and further agreed to lease pa#$ents totaling G@"B== o'er two #ears. (. Defendants agreed to the purchase on the %asis that the# were told %# the plaintiff that the# would easil# o%tain an alcoholic %e'erage license" and also failed to tell the defendants that the %ar had had its license pre'iousl# re'o+ed. *. Defendants $ade reno'ations to the %ar" clai$ing a total of G@"2== in reno'ations. ?. 9hen defendants were denied an alcohol license" the# refused to $a+e an# further pa#$ents in rent and recei'ed a letter de$anding such rent. B. Plaintiff instituted the suit see+ing to reco'er the unpaid %alance on the two #ear lease G@"B==& and see+ing se)uestration of the %ar contents. @. Defendants filed a recon'entional de$and alleging fraud or error" and sought da$ages against plaintiff. 2. DC ruled in fa'or of plaintiff for the one $onthEs unpaid rentF the court rescinded the sale due to error" and rendered 1udg$ent for defendants for G@"B== for the a$ount paid in connection with the sale. >. Plaintiff appealed the 1udg$ent" and the defendants answered see+ing relief fro$ the G(B= 1udg$ent and G@"2== for the cost of reno'ations. 3. The court of appeal re'ersed the 1udg$ent of the recon'entional de$and and upheld the sale of the %usiness. 1=. Defendants appealed to the /ouisiana Supre$e Court. 0ssue 9hether the sale of a %ar,lounge %usiness and a related lease should %e rescinded %ecause of a 'ice of consent error&4 Holding 7es" the sale of the %ar,lounge %usiness and related lease should %e rescinded %ecause of error. Rule The error in the cause of a contract to ha'e the effect of in'alidating it" $ust %e on the principal cause" when there are se'eralF this principal cause is called the <oti'e" and $eans that consideration without which the contract would not ha'e %een $ade. 6o error in the $oti'e can in'alidate a contract" unless the other part# was apprised that it was the principal cause of the agree$ent" or unless fro$ the nature of the transaction it $ust %e presu$ed that he +new it. Error in the deter$ining $oti'e" or principal cause" 'itiates consent and in'alidates a contract. Error as to a su%sidiar# $oti'e has no effect upon the 'alidit# of a contract.

Reasoning The deter$ining $oti'e for the present contracts was to secure a going %ar,lounge %usiness for their continued operation. An alcoholic %e'erage license was of course essential for operation of the %usiness. This deter$ining $oti'e" in our opinion" was either +nown to the seller" fro$ the circu$stances" should ha'e %een +nown to hi$.

Bisc"off v. Brot"ers of t"e Sacred Heart

?1@ So.(d *?> /a. App. ?th Cir. 13>(&

Facts 1. Plaintiff applied for a teaching position in religion with !rother <artin High School in 6ew -rleans. (. Prior to the inter'iew" he filled out an application" which was in a chec+ off for$at. Plaintiff chec+ed that he was a practicing Catholic and that he was $arried. *. He was hired and a contract was signed on <arch (2" 132(. ?. The plaintiffEs religious practices and $arital status were not discussed prior to signing. B. A short ti$e after" !rother Farrel learned that the plaintiff was di'orced and re$arried" which was contrar# to Catholic Church doctrine" thus resulting in the withdrawal of the contract %# the Defendant. @. 0n a con'ersation with !rother Farrel" plaintiff ac+nowledged that he +new that his di'orce would ha'e resulted in his not %eing hired. 2. Plaintiff filed suit for wages" $ental anguish" da$age to his career" and attorne#Es fees. >. DC rendered 1udg$ent for defendant stating that %ecause the plaintiff was an e8pert in Catholic doctrine" he +new or should ha'e +nown his not $entioning his $arital status would $islead the defendant in his hiring. DC rendered the contract 'oid ab initio2. 3. Plaintiff appealed stating that it was not his o%ligation to notif# the defendant %ecause it did not as+ a%out whether he was di'orced" onl# whether he was $arried or single. 0ssue 9hether plaintiff intended to decei'e the defendant %# $erel# chec+ing CPracticing Catholic4D 9hether this deception %ad faith& caused error" which would result in the contract %eing 'oid ab initio4
(

/atin for CFro$ the %eginningD

Holding 7es" the plaintiff intended to decei'e the defendant %# $erel# chec+ing CPracticing CatholicD" and the %ad faith resulted in the contract %eing 'oid ab initio. Reasoning Plaintiff said he didnEt di'ulge his $arital histor# %ecause he +new !rother Farrel would not ha'e hired hi$ under those circu$stances. Plaintiff testified he was aware of Catholic dog$a regarding di'orce and the court concludes that the plaintiffEs %ad faith caused error and the contract was 'oid ab initio 2ise v. Prescott
1B1 So.(d *B@ /a. 13@*&

Facts 1. Plaintiff was in1ured while riding on a %us operated %# 6-PS0 that was in'ol'ed in an wrec+ with defendant. (. 9ithin (? hours of the accident" a representati'e fro$ Allstate 0nsurance" the defendantEs insurer" 'isited plaintiff and e8ecuted a transaction or co$pro$ise with her to release the defendant and Allstate fro$ lia%ilit# in e8change of G1=B.==. *. Plaintiff later instituted a suit against the defendant and others in'ol'ed. ?. The DC rendered 1udg$ent for plaintiff against all defendants for G11"===" despite the e8istence of the transaction or co$pro$ise. B. The Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant and Allstate were relie'ed of lia%ilit# %ecause of the transaction or co$pro$ise e8ecuted with the plaintiff. @. Plaintiff appealed to the /ouisiana Supre$e Court. 0ssue 9hether" under these facts" the 1ur#Es finding that the release was in'alid was correct as a $atter of law4 Holding 7es" the finding was correct that the release was in'alid. Rule CC. Art. 1>?1 5 Error as to the nature of the contract Reasoning

The court reasons that the facts and circu$stances of the e8ecution of the release shows that the plaintiff reasona%l# %elie'ed the THC to %e a receipt fro$ a gift fro$ defendant and %elie'ed that it would not ha'e an#thing to do with her case.

/oitier v. &nti+ue &rt Gallery

B(? So.(d >= /a. App. *d Cir. 13>>&

Facts 1. Histor# of the sale of the painting: a. Rotondaro purchased fro$ Harrison dH%Ha Anti)ue Art Naller#. i. Rotondaro had painting authenticated as a Neorge 0nnis original. %. Rotondaro consigned the painting %ac+ to Harrison to $a+e a profit. c. Harrison contacted Dish$ond of <ortonEs Auction E8change" 0nc. to ha'e the painting sold at auction in 6ew -rleans. d. Auction was held and the painting was sold to Ooitier without authenticit#. (. Ooitier de$anded a letter of authenticit#" and was sent one fro$ Rosal#n <i+esell of the 9e%%erl# Nalleries in Chicago" 0llinois. *. Ooitier was not satisfied with the letter and contracted the ser'ices of 6icoli Ci+o's+#" an e8pert of Neorge 0nnis wor+s. ?. Ci+o's+# rendered a written opinion that the painting was not a Neorge 0nnis original. B. Ooitier contacted Nold%erg in an effort to reco'er the purchase price fro$ Rotondaro and Harrison Anti)ue Art Naller#&F no reco'er# $ade. @. Ooitier instituted a suit for the reco'er# and the DC found the painting to not %e a Neorge 0nnis original. 2. Defendants appeal" not on the authenticit# of the painting" %ut that this deter$ination will not support a cause of action for rescission on the ground of error. The# contend that the painting was sold without warrant#. 0ssue 9hether the deter$ination of the authenticit# of the painting will support a cause of action for rescission on the ground of error4 Holding 7es" the trial courtEs deter$ination will support a cause of action for rescission of the sale on the ground of error.

Rule C-ur 1urisprudence is well settled that a contract $a# %e in'alidated for a unilateral error as to a fact which was the principal cause for $a+ing the contract" where the other part# +new or should ha'e +nown it was the principal cause.D CError as to the nature or o%1ect of a contract $a# %e with regard to either the su%stance or the o%1ect of the agree$ent" or su%stantial )ualit# of the o%1ect" or so$e other )ualit# of the o%1ect if such )ualit# is the principal cause of $a+ing the contract.D Reasoning 0t was clear to <orton" the agent for Rotondaro" that Ooitier was interested in a Neorge 0nnis original. Although <orton assured" in good faith" that the painting was a Neorge 0nnis original" <orton did not ha'e the painting properl# authenticated" which allowed for the conclusion that the plaintiff had a right to a rescission of the contract on the %asis of unilateral error. Hill v. Hill
12* /a. B2?" 1*> So. 1=2 13*1&

Facts 1. Appeal was instituted %# plaintiff fro$ a 1udg$ent re1ecting his de$and for annul$ent of an agree$ent calling for an act of partition" which was underta+en to resol'e conflicting clai$s to (= acres of land. (. Plaintiff and defendants had a conflict as to the a$ount of land each part# should ha'e fro$ the estate of the $other. *. Plaintiff and defendants e8ecuted a transaction or co$pro$ise agree$ent to settle the dispute. The agree$ent ga'e plaintiff the surface rights to (= acres of the 1@= acre tract" which was su%1ect to plaintiffEs usufruct. 0t was stipulated that all parties would consent to lease the land for the production of oil and gas" and the ro#alties would %e pa#a%le to the defendants as owners of the land. ?. A well was drilled and produced gas in co$$ercial )uantities. Plaintiff would recei'e no $onies %ecause of his $ere surface rights. B. Plaintiff clai$s that he was induced to $a+e the co$pro$ise %# error of law and %# a $isrepresentation as to his title to half the land. He contends" under Art. 1>?@" that he has the right to annul for error of law %ecause that error was the onl# cause for his $a+ing the THC. @. Defendants contend that the plaintiff had no interest in the land" and that their gi'ing hi$ the usufruct of the surface of the land for the re$ainder of his life was a gratuit# on their part. 2. DC dis$issed the suit for failure of the plaintiff to allege a cause of action. 0ssue

9hether the agree$ent $a# %e annulled %ecause of error of law4 Holding 6o" the agree$ent $a# not %e annulled %ecause of error of law. Rule A contract $ade for the purpose of a'oiding litigation" cannot %e rescinded for error of law ,,CC. Art. *=2> 8rr v. 2al%er
(*@ /a. 2?=" 1=> So.(d 22 13B3&

Facts 1. Plaintiff instituted this suit to annul a deed on the grounds of fraud and $isrepresentation" in which he purportedl# con'e#ed to defendant" a tract of land. (. Defendant approached plaintiff concerning the purchase of the land stating that he had o%tained a deed fro$ Talle# for the land ad1oining the propert#. The defendant +new that the con'e#ance fro$ Talle# was not a %ona fide con'e#ance and that he falsel# stated that he was going to occup# the pre$ises as his ho$e. -rr would ne'er had sold the land to Tall# %c of their prior dealings" in a suit called -rr '. 9al+er. -rr was selling the propert# %ecause he thought he was getting rid of a undesira%le neigh%or. *. Talle# was the real part# in interest %ehind the purported con'e#ance. He used /ee 9al+er to get a con'e#ance for hi$self fro$ -rr. 9al+er clai$s he did not gain an# financial ad'antage. ?. DC annulled the transferF the Court of Appeals re'ersed and dis$issed the suit. Plaintiff appealed to the Supre$e Court. 0ssue 9hether the con'e#ance $a# %e annulled %ased upon fraud and $isrepresentation of defendant or was the state$ents pro$issor# in nature relating to future actions that does not constitute actiona%le fraud4 Holding 7es" the con'e#ance $a# %e annulled %ased upon fraud and $isrepresentation of the defendant. The acts were designed to cause incon'enience to P, would for$ the %asis of an action to annul the deed in )uestion. Rule

A person $a# ha'e his contract annulled when it has %een o%tained through the practice of artifice %# another designed to cause hi$ incon'enienceF the sustaining of a pecuniar# loss is not essential. Reasoning PlaintiffEs error of fact was induced %# the $isrepresentation of defendant which su%stantiall# influenced his consent. 0n fact" it influenced a cause without which plaintiff wouldnEt ha'e o%ligated hi$self.

8verby v. Beac"
((= /a. 22" BB So.(d >2* 13B1&

Facts 1. Plaintiff instituted this rescission action to o%tain the annul$ent of se'eral instru$ents %# and through which she ac)uired %# purchase certain real propert# in 6ew -rleans consisting of B apart$ents under the sa$e roof. (. Plaintiff was interested in purchasing said real propert# fro$ !a%ins. *. !a%ins designated the legall# collecti%le rental which the# were recei'ing for each of the B apart$ents. ?. 9hile negotiating" plaintiff re)uired !a%ins to warrant to her in writing what the legall# collecti%le rents for each of the said B apart$ents wereF the# ga'e her a written warrant#. B. Plaintiff purchased the properties fro$ the !a%ins" and consu$$ated the sale through authentic acts. @. -n Manuar# *1" 13?3" plaintiff was infor$ed that the rental charged for one of the apart$ents was in e8cess of the $a8i$u$ rental per$itted %# the -ffice of Price Ad$inistration. 2. 0t was further disco'ered that all B apart$ent rentals were at 'ariance with the su$s which had %een represented to the plaintiff %# !a%ins as %eing legall# collecti%le under their warrant# in writing. >. Plaintiff alleges that her principal cause for entering into the agree$ent was the result of the warrant# in writing %# the defendant. 3. DC sustained the e8ceptions filed %# !a%ins for no cause of action and dis$issed the suit. 1=. Plaintiff appeals to the Court of Appeals.

Issue
9hether these false assertions a$ount in law to such fraud as will for$ the %asis of an action of rescission4 ;st Hearing

Holding
6o" these false assertions cannot for$ the %asis of an action of rescission %ecause the# were easil# attaina%le.

Reasoning
The $isrepresentation was regarding the 'alue of the o%1ect. The court reasoned that the plaintiff could ha'e easil# ascertained the correct ceiling on the propert# %# in)uiring at the -ffice of Price Ad$inistration. 0f she had %een gi'en false infor$ation at the -PA" she could %ring a rescission suit. Howe'er" it is difficult to %elie'e that she would ha'e recei'ed such %ad infor$ation. Dissent: The $a1orit# is rel#ing on an assu$ption that plaintiff would ha'e %een a%le to get the ceiling price infor$ation. R.H.&RI!G: The $isrepresentation was not as to the 'alue of the o%1ect of the contract %ut rather a $isstate$ent concerning the )ualit# of the o%1ect. 0t was a $isrepresentation of a fact concerning the legal a$ount of rent the apart$ents were actuall# %ringing in. The parol e'idence rule does not appl# where fraud or error is alleged" so the DEs argu$ent that the collecti%le rents were not in the K is %arred %# the rule is without $erit. The court affir$ed the decision against the Ho$estead" %ut re'ersed the decision in relation to the !a%ins and ruled that it was fraud. Cooder v. 8teri
*? /a. Ann. @3? 1>>(&

Facts 1. The o%1ect of this suit %rought %# the plaintiff was to annul and cancel * notes of G1"=== each %ecause plaintiff contends that defendant $ade threats of death to hi$ and his fa$il# if the notes were not paid. (. The creation of the notes arose when the defendant returned fro$ %usiness" he disco'ered that he had %een ro%%ed of GB"===. *. The police arrested the suspect and was a%le to reco'er on G("=== of the $one#. ?. -teri charges that Cooder had influenced -teriEs wife in fa'or of the suspect" and that Cooder should %e responsi%le for the re$aining G*"===. B. Cooder charges that -teri pu%licl# threatened hi$ with death and destruction of his ho$e if he did not pa# the a$ount.

0ssue 9hether the pro$issor# notes can %e cancelled for duress on the part of -teri4 Holding 6o" the pro$issor# notes cannot %e cancelled for duress for lac+ of proof of the threats. Reasoning The court reasoned that the threats $ade %# -teri to Cooder were not in relation to his pa#ing the notes" %ut were of the $atter of adulter# %etween -teriEs wife and Cooder. Cooder presented a letter to pro'e the threats. Howe'er" the threats $ade were in accordance with his legal rights. 2ilson v. &etna Casualty ) Surety Co.
((> So.(d ((3 /a. App. *d Cir. 13@3&

Facts 1. Plaintiff was in1ured in an auto$o%ile accident and was hospitali:ed. (. Plaintiff signed a co$pro$ise of GB"=== with defendant for the settle$ent of his clai$s. The defendant clai$s that he settled under the duress of %eing faced with econo$ic pro%le$s and discharge fro$ the hospital with no place to go. He clai$s to ha'e %een persuaded to do so %# his attending ph#sician. *. After signing the co$pro$ise" plaintiff instituted this suit against defendant for his personal in1uries sustained. ?. Defendant filed a $otion of res 1udicata" %ut was o'erruled %# the trial court" who awarded plaintiff G1@"@B>.B= in da$ages $inus the GB"=== alread# recei'ed. Defendant appealed the trial courtEs ruling.

Issue
9hether the duress clai$ed at trial is sufficient for the rescission of the co$pro$ise4 9hether the trial court erred in o'erruling the defendantEs e8ception pleading res 1udicata4

Holding
7es" the trial court erred in o'erruling the e8ception of res 1udicata %ecause the duress clai$ed was not duress" %ut was $ere error on the part of the plaintiff" which is not a cause for annulling a co$pro$ise under the Code.

Rule
A co$pro$ise cannot %e annulled for error of law or for lesion. 0t $a#" howe'er" %e rescinded for fraud or 'iolence" as well as for error of facts to a principal cause for $a+ing the contract" as to the person with who$ it is $ade" or as to the su%1ect $atter of the dispute. A contract entered into under duress that would cause fear or great in1ur# to person" reputation" or fortune" is in'alid" e'en if the person fa'ored %# the contract did not e8ercise the 'iolence or $a+e the threats and was unaware of the duress. A co$pro$ise is su%1ect to rescission when e8ecuted under such duress.

Reasoning
There was no duress presented in this situation. The plaintiff was full# aware of his situation" the nature and effect of the release" and the e8tent of the clai$ co$pro$ised. His consent to the release was 'oluntar#. The %ad ad'ice of a stranger to the co$pro$ise is not grounds for rescinding it. The code does not recogni:e annul$ent for econo$ic duress. &dams v. &dams
B=* So.(d 1=B( /a. App. (d Cir. 13>2&

Facts 1. Plaintiff <rs. Ada$s& and Defendant <r. Ada$s& separated and %egan the proceedings for di'ision of co$$unit# propert#. (. Plaintiff and defendant reached an agree$ent on the settle$ent of the co$$unit# propert# in which plaintiff would recei'e G1="=== cash" a new car" plus auto$o%ile and hospitali:ation insurance for one #ear. Defendant would recei'e the other i$$o'a%les and would assu$e all co$$unit# de%t. *. Plaintiff clai$s that defendant threatened her with his declaring %an+ruptc#" which would $a+e her a part of pa#ing the de%t. ?. Plaintiff further clai$s duress fro$ the stress of the separation.

Issue
9hether the duress clai$ed %# the plaintiff was sufficient to constitute legal duress as set forth in the Ci'il Code4 And is the agree$ent %inding4

Holding
6o" the duress clai$ed was not sufficient to constitute legal duress. Therefore" the agree$ent is %inding.

Rule
Consent is 'itiated when it has %een o%tained %# duress of such a nature as to cause a reasona%le fear of un1ust and considera%le in1ur# to a part#Es person" propert#" or reputation. Age" health" disposition" and other personal circu$stances of a part $ust %e ta+en into account in deter$ining reasona%leness of the fear. A threat of doing a lawful act or a threat of e8ercising a right does not constitute duress.

Reasoning
<ost of the 'iolence or threats of which <rs. Ada$s co$plained surround the clai$s %# <r. Ada$s to declare %an+ruptc# and state$ents $ade to <rs. Ada$s concerning her o%ligation to pa# her portion of the co$$unit# de%ts which are legal rights. Pursuant to the rule a%o'e" this did not constitute duress. <rs. Ada$s failed to pro'e a reasona%le fear of un1ust or considera%le in1ur# to her person. The sha+ing was not shown to %e related to the co$$unit# propert# settle$ent. The court reasoned that the conflicting e$otions caused %# the strain of going through a critical period in oneEs life is not the t#pe of stain constituting legal duress. Commerce Insurance &gency, Inc. v. Hogue
@1> So.(d 1=?> /a. App. 1st Cir. 133*&

Facts 1. (. *. ?. B. @. 0ssue 9hether the sale lac+ed a specific o%1ect4 Holding C0A and Hogue entered into an agree$ent to purchase C0AEs C!oo+ of !usinessD for G11B"===.==. Contract e8cluded all accounts of Capital !an+ ; Trust and all flood insurance accounts. 6o cop# of the C!oo+ of !usinessD was attached to the contract. Hogue testified that he +new that %# purchasing the !oo+ of !usiness" he was recei'ing the agenc#Es account list" and +new it e8isted" where it was stored and filed" and said that there was no reason for hi$ to loo+ at it. C0A filed suit against Hogue see+ing to enforce the contract of sale. The trial court ruled that the sale was 'oid due to the lac+ of a specific o%1ect and C0A appealed.

6o" the sale did not lac+ a specific o%1ect and was capa%le of definition and description. Rule Ci'il Code Art. 132* 5 the o%1ect of a contract $ust %e deter$inate at least to +indF howe'er" the )uantit# of a contractual o%1ect $a# %e undeter$ined" as long as it is deter$ina%le. Reasoning The parties to this contract clearl# understood what was %eing %ought and sold and" therefore" the trial courtEs finding that the contract was 'oid due to the a%sence of a specific o%1ect is erroneous. State v. #e*is
B*3 So.(d 1133 /a. 13>3&

Facts 1. Defendant was charged with felon# theft and negotiated a plea %argain with the Rapides Parish DA and a .. S. Attorne#. (. Defendant agreed to gi'e Cfull and co$plete cooperationD to a state in'estigation. *. 0n e8change" defendant would onl# %e charged with one count of $isde$eanor theft or atte$pted theft. ?. Rapides Parish DA %elie'ed defendant was not full# cooperating and had %reached the agree$ent. The DA reacti'ated the felon# charge. 0ssue 9hether the agree$ent %etween /ewis and the Rapides Parish DA can %e dissol'ed for failure of cause4 Holding 7es" the agree$ent can %e dissol'ed for failure of cause. Rules A long standing rule of contract law is that consent of %oth parties is re)uired for a 'alid contract. Consent $a# %e 'itiated %# error" fraud" or duress. Error 'itiates consent onl# when it concerns a cause without which the o%ligation would not ha'e %een incurred and that cause was +nown or should ha'e %een +nown to the other part#. Error $a# concern a cause when it %ears on the nature of the contract" or the thing that is the contractual o%1ectI" or the law" or an# other circu$stance that the parties regarded" or should in good faith ha'e regarded" as a cause of the o%ligation.

Reasoning The defendant pro'ided e'idence apparentl# %elie'ing he would %e i$$une fro$ prosecution in other 1urisdictions" a guarantee the DA had no authorit# to $a+e. <eanwhile" the state %elie'ed infor$ation concerning arson would %e pro'ided" which infor$ation defendant contends he is una%le to pro'ide since he asserts he has no +nowledge of it. Considering the record as a whole" there has %een failure of cause on %oth sides and" thus" the agree$ent should not stand.

#iles v. Bourgeois
B12 So.(d 1=2> /a. App. *rd Cir. 13>2&

Facts 1. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract in which plaintiff was to Cprosecute" negotiate" and settle all actions of causes or clai$s concerned with the interdiction and succession of Nrace Sells.D (. Plaintiff was to recei'e a contingenc# fee of T of the su$ ac)uired fro$ the estate of Nrace Sells. 0t also pro'ided for a $ini$u$ fee for wor+ done and that plaintiff would not recei'e ownership of an# propert# ac)uired" %ut would %e paid in cash or its e)ui'alent. *. Plaintiff did wor+ and represented defendant until defendant was placed in possession of the propert#. ?. Plaintiff filed suite to reco'er legal fees as a result of plaintiffEs gaining the propert#. B. Defendant contended that the contract was unenforcea%le %ecause it was prohi%ited %# general and special laws of /ouisiana. @. Trial Court held the contract in'alid pursuant to CC. Art. 1>>2 and rendered 1udg$ent in fa'or of the plaintiff for G1B"===.== %ased on )uantu$ $eruit. 2. Plaintiff appeals see+ing G?*"1>@.2(" less a G1"1@1.== credit. 0ssue 9hether the contingenc# fee contract %etween an attorne# and his client wherein the fee conte$plated was to %e %ased upon a percentage of the clientEs future inheritance fro$ her $other is 'alid4 Holding 6o" the contract of a contingenc# fee is in'alid %ased on the laws in the Code. Rule

Future things $a# %e the o%1ect of an o%ligation. -ne cannot" howe'er" renounce the succession of an estate not #et de'ol'ed" nor can an# stipulation %e $ade with regard to such a succession" e'en with the consent of hi$ whose succession is in )uestion. There is a general concept of )uasi contractual o%ligationsF it is a consent %ased upon the principle that where there is an un1ust enrich$ent of one at the e8pense or i$po'erish$ent of another" then the 'alue of that enrich$ent or else" in so$e cases" the a$ount of the i$po'erish$ent $ust %e restituted. Reasoning The situation created %# this contract of e$plo#$ent was in clear 'iolation of %oth the language and of the underl#ing policies of the pertinent code articles whether one considers the prohi%ition to %e i$$oral" dangerous" or 1ust an unwise %argain. The contingent fee contract %ased upon an interest in a future succession is" therefore" unenforcea%le. Pelican 2ell v. 0o"nson:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant creditor sought review of a decision of a Louisiana trial court, which entered judgment for appellee assignees in an action filed by the creditor to collect a debt. OVERVIEW: The creditor supplied a debtor with materials to drill oil wells. The debtor subsequently conveyed its mineral lease to the assignees. The creditor filed an action against the assignees to collect on the debt owed to it by the debtor. The creditor claimed that the assignees assumed the debt when they acquired the mineral lease. The assignees filed exceptions of no cause of action, which the trial court granted. The creditor sought review. The court annulled and set aside the judgment and remanded the action for further proceedings. The court found that the original contract between the debtor and the assignees gave the latter six months to examine the titles and pay the purchase price of the lease. Although that instrument did not mention the debtor's debts, a supplemental contract incorporated into the agreement several months later did refer to the debts. The supplemental contract granted the assignees an extension for examining the titles and paying the purchase price. n exchange, the assignees obligated themselves to pay all of the debtor's obligations relative to the oil drilling operation. The debt owed to the creditor fell within the terms of the supplemental contract. OUTCOME: The court annulled and set aside a judgment for the assignees in the creditor's action to collect a debt. The court remanded the action for further proceedings.

&ndre ont v. &cadia Drilling Co., Inc.

(BB /a. *?2" (*1 So.(d *?2 13@3&

Facts

1. Andrepont was granted a 'er%al lease in 13@? to far$ so#%eans on a *B acre tract" a condition %eing that he pa# the landowner (BQ of the crop as rent. (. -n Septe$%er 1B" 13@?" the landowner e8ecuted an oil and gas lease granting to the lessees defendants& the right to go upon the land to e8plore for and produce oil" gas" and other $inerals. *. -riginall# included" in the -HN lease" was a stipulation that the lessee shall %e responsi%le for all da$ages to ti$%er and growing crops of /essor caused %# /esseeEs operations. The clause was altered to read" CThe lessee shall %e responsi%le for all da$ages caused %# /esseeEs operations.D ?. 0n spring of 13@B" Andrepont culti'ated and planted the field with earl# indications of a successful crop. B. 0n Mul# of 13@B" defendants entered upon the land" %uilt a %oard road across plaintiffEs field" dug waste pits and proceeded to drill a well in search of $inerals. DefendantEs actions destro#ed part of the crop and i$paired drainage in the re$ainder of the so#%ean field. Due to the inade)uate drainage" the re$ainder of the crop was destro#ed. @. DefendantEs search resulted in a Cdr# holeD" the# re$o'ed all e)uip$ent" and paid the landowner G1(B in consideration for their o%taining a release for CherD da$age as a result of their operations. 2. Plaintiff tried to contact the defendant se'eral ti$es for restitution" %ut recei'ed no answer of pa#$ent. He thus filed suit on -cto%er 1>" 13@B for da$ages to his crop caused %# the oil and gas lesseeEs operations. >. DC granted reco'er# to AndrepontF the * rd Circuit Court of Appeals re'ersed DC 1udg$entF on original hearing" Supre$e Court affir$ed Court of Appeals. Case is decided on the second hearing. 0ssue 9hether the defendant is lia%le for da$ages to plaintiffEs crops pursuant to the contract with the landowner4 9hether the plaintiff can reco'er fro$ a stipulation pour autrui34 Holding 7es" the defendant is lia%le to plaintiff for da$ages to his crops as a result of a stipulation pour autrui. Rule See Pin+ on p. **@ 2agner ) 'rua6 Co., Inc. v. Barnett .nter rises, Inc.
??2 So.(d 1(BB /a. App. ?th Cir. 13>?&

Pour Autrui 5 French& for others

Facts 1. Suit was instituted %# plaintiff against defendant for the pa#$ent of a real estate co$$ission that plaintiff clai$s it earned %# the effort of its agent in procuring a lease of co$$ercial propert# owned %# defendant. (. Defendant had co$$issioned Farnsworth,Sa$uel" /td. for their ser'ices in procuring a lease of its co$$ercial propert#. *. Farnsworth,Sa$uel contracted plaintiffEs ser'ices to aid in the search and pro$ised plaintiff S of the their 2Q co$$ission in o%taining a lease. ?. An agent of the plaintiff contacted a co$pan# to sign a lease for the propert#. Howe'er" the co$pan# could not successfull# $a+e a lease with the defendant. B. Defendant contracted with another %ro+er and was a%le to cul$inate a lease with the co$pan#. @. Plaintiff clai$ed that defendant had %reached its contract with Farnsworth %ecause it contracted with another %ro+er within the one #ear lease stipulation. 2. Plaintiff also clai$ed that %ecause the# %rought <ash%urn co$pan#& into the picture" the# were entitled to their part of the co$$ission. >. Farnsworth clai$ed co$$ission due %# defendant" %ut did not sue. Defendant paid Farnsworth G1*"B== for their co$$ission due. 3. .pon learning that Farnsworth had settled their clai$s" plaintiff sued Farnsworth as a third part# for their clai$ of S of the co$$ission. 1=. The DC rendered 1udg$ent against !arnett defendant& in fa'or of plaintiffF %ut rendered 1udg$ent against plaintiff in its 1oining of Farnsworth. Plaintiff did not appeal the 1udg$ent against FarnsworthPtherefore" the onl# appeal is %# !arnett for the pa#$ent of the co$$ission to plaintiff.

Issue
9hether defendant is lia%le to plaintiff for the co$$ission %ecause plaintiff is entitled %# a stipulation pour autrui4

Holding
6o" the defendant is not lia%le to the plaintiff for the co$$ission %ecause of a stipulation pour autrui.

Rule
A real estate %ro+er cannot reco'er a co$$ission unless he shows an agree$ent for the pa#$ent of co$pensation for his ser'ices. A %ro+er is not entitled to pa#$ent e'en on a )uantu$ $eruit %asis where he has no e8press or i$plied contract with the part# fro$ who$ he see+s a co$$ission.

There $ust %e a contract of e$plo#$ent" either e8press or i$plied fro$ the facts" and no one can clai$ co$pensation fro$ one who did not e$plo# hi$" howe'er %eneficial or 'alua%le the ser'ices $a# pro'e.

Reasoning
At the ti$e FHS entered into the listing agree$ent with Defendant" it did not +now who" if an#one" would %e affiliated with it" and could not ha'e conte$plated eliciting a pro$ise fro$ defendant to confer a %enefit on plaintiff. !arnett did not +now who FHS would affiliate" and it is e'ident that !arnett did not pro$ise FHS that it would pa# a co$$ission to plaintiff. Rather !arnett pro$ised onl# to pa# FHS" no one else" to procure a lease of !arnettEs propert#. An# agree$ent FHS $ade with affiliated %ro+ers was not part of its contract with !arnett" and there was no o%ligation owed %# !arnett to plaintiff" e'en though FHS $a# well ha'e owed a natural o%ligation to pa# S of an# co$$ission recei'ed or an# su$ in settle$ent" including an# a$ount paid under the hold har$less agree$ent. And while it is true !arnettEs pro$ise to pa# a co$$ission to FHS $a# ha'e incidentall# %enefited plaintiff" since FHS would %e o%ligated to split the co$$ission with plaintiff when it was paid" this is not a stipulation pour autrui. /inet v. Bres
?> /a. Ann. 1(B?" (= So. @3* 1>3B&

Facts 1. 9ooten con'e#ed the propert# to the defendants" with full su%rogation to all of his rights and actions against all pre'ious 'endors" for the price of G@"233.B@" of which the su$ of GB== was paid in cashF and for the %alance of said purchase" the defendants would assu$e and agree to pa# 3 pro$issor# notes and interest to 9ee$s. (. 0t was further agreed that the present purchaser shall ha'e the sa$e rights as gi'en to 9ooten %# 9ee$s. The act was done under pri'ate signature. *. The sale was %ased on the fact that 9ooten had re)uested of 9ee$s" a 3=,da# e8tension of the pa#$ent of his second note" and that the defendants had consented to purchase the propert# at the price stipulated" if the e8tension was grantedF that 9ee$s granted the e8tension" and the defendants" ha'ing %een notified of the fact" accepted the deed fro$ 9ooten" and had it recorded 1ust %efore 9ee$sE death. ?. 9ee$sE attorne# contacted defendant in reference to the $atter" and e8pressed regret that the sale had not %een perfected" and defendant infor$ed hi$ that it had %een co$pleted and furnished the deed as proof. B. The act was e8ecuted pre'ious to 9ee$sE death" and defendants contend that 9ee$s +new a%out the e8tension..

@. Plaintiff" e8ecutor of 9ee$sE succession" sued defendants for pa#$ent of the notes. 0ssue 9hether" in the sale fro$ 9./. 9ooten to the defendants" the defendants assu$ed the pa#$ent of the nine notes of 9ooten" and all of his o%ligations as purchaser of the propert# fro$ 9ee$s" including the e8tension of the second pa#$ent for 3= da#s4 Holding 7es" defendants assu$ed the pa#$ents" which included the e8tension of 3= da#s on the second note. Therefore" the e8tension is 'alid %ecause 9ee$s +new of the e8tension. Rule A person $a# also" in his own na$e" $a+e so$e ad'antage for a third person the condition or consideration of a co$$utati'e contract" or onerous donationF and" if such third person consents to a'ail hi$self of the ad'antage stipulated in his fa'or" the contract cannot %e re'o+ed. Bryant v. Stot"art
?@ /a. Ann. ?>B" 1B So. 2@ 1>3?&

Facts 1. Suit was instituted to dissol'e the sale of a plantation %ecause of nonpa#$ent of the price. (. The ter$s of the sale were: a. Cash pa#$ent %. Two credit notes to %e paid %# defendant to plaintiff c. The assu$ption of notes of the plaintiff %# the defendant *. At the institution of the suit" plaintiff had recei'ed the cash pa#$ent" the defendant had paid one of the notes" and $ade pa#$ents on the assu$ed notes. ?. The re$ainder of the notes was outstanding and unpaid. The plaintiff also na$ed the $ortgage co$pan# as a defendant in the suit %ecause one of the notes held %# the plaintiff to %e paid %# the defendant had $atured. B. The default of the $atured notes was the %asis for the suit. @. Plaintiff clai$ed: a. The dissolution of the sale of the plantationF %. That defendant should pa# for alleged depreciation and consu$ption of the personal propert# of the plantationF c. That defendant should pa# the di$inished 'alue of the plantationF d. Mudg$ent against defendant for the fruits of the propert# since the sale. 2. Defendant filed e8ceptions" %ut was o'erruled. Defendant answered contesting: a. The plaintiffEs de$and for the dissolution of the sale %. The lia%ilit# of defendant in case the sale was dissol'ed.

>. The $ortgage co$pan# answered their suit for the reasons stated on p. *B=.& 3. DC 1ur# rendered 1udg$ent dissol'ing the sale" conde$ning plaintiff to pa# rents" that plaintiff restore the price paid" and that plaintiff pa# defendant for i$pro'e$ents to the propert#. !oth parties appealed the 1udg$ent. 0ssue 9hether the $ortgage co$pan# accepted the defendant as de%tor4 9hether the plaintiff is a%le to restore the defendant pro$isor& to the position he was %efore the sale4 Holding 7es" the $ortgage co$pan# accepted the defendant as de%tor. 6o" the plaintiff is una%le to restore the defendant to the position he was %efore the sale. Rule The dissol'ing condition acco$plished in the contract of sale places the parties as the# stood %efore the sale. The 'endor ta+es %ac+ the propert#. The purchaser is restored the price he has paid" and is entitled to a co$plete discharge for an# part of the price he has not paid. Reasoning The court finds that the contract had a third part# %eneficiar# the $ortgage co$pan#&" and that the contract cannot %e dissol'ed through $utual consent of the pro$isor and pro$isee plaintiff ; defendant.& The defendant o%1ects to the suit %ecause of 1udicial discri$inationPthe dissolution canEt %e allowed %ecause the *rd Part# %eneficiar# has consented to defendant as de%tor. Plaintiff atte$pted to contract a %ond of inde$nit# with the defendant" %ut the %ond is not enough e'en though the $ortgage co$pan# was $ade a part# to the suit. The court reasons that unless the $ortgage co$pan# is %rought into the suit as a plaintiff and offers a release to the defendant" plaintiffEs suit $ust %e dis$issed. SEE -RA6NE -6 P. *B= &. Bonnafe ) Co. v. #ane
B /a. Ann. ((B 1>B=&

Facts 1. Mohn /ane sold to E.<. /ane his plantation" including sla'es and stoc+" following a 1udg$ent against Mohn /aneEs creditors in 1>?B.

(. As part of the deal" E.<. /ane was %ound to pa# the creditorEs of Mohn /ane for the de%ts incurred %# hi$" which included those to plaintiff. *. E.<. /ane had reali:ed G(B"=== fro$ the crops" %ut had not paid an# creditors. ?. DC rendered 1udg$ent against E.<. /ane personall# upon his pro$ise $ade to Mohn /ane that he would appl# the inco$e of the propert# purchased to his de%ts due to the creditors. B. Defendant contends that without the stipulation" the crops gather would %e the propert# of E.<. /ane" personall#. Defendant further contends that the stipulation did not ha'e the force of an o%ligation" until accepted %# the creditors. Thus" an# crops gathered prior to the acceptance %# the creditors would %e the propert# of E.<. /ane" personall#.

Issues
9hether E.<. /ane has a right to treat the gathered crops as his own4 9hether all creditors had to accept the stipulation in order for E.<. /ane to not treat the crops as his own4

Holding
7es" all creditors had to accept the stipulation in order for E.<. /ane to not treat the crops as his ownF therefore" /ane could treat the crops as his own" %ut $ust hold the fund %ecause the creditors ha'e an interest.

Rules
A person $a# also in his own na$e $a+e so$e ad'antage for a * rd person the condition or consideration of a co$$utati'e contract or onerous donationF and if such third person consents to a'ail hi$self of the ad'antage stipulated in his fa'or" the contract cannot %e re'o+ed. A contract in which an#thing is stipulated for the %enefit of a third person who has signified his assent to accept it" cannot %e re'o+ed" as to the ad'antage stipulated in his fa'or" without his consent. <oreo'er" the lawgi'er" not content with recogni:ing the right and lea'ing the re$ed# to i$plication" has in e8press ter$s gi'en the %eneficiar# an action to enforce it.

Reasoning
The court reasons that the case should %e re$anded in order to allow all creditors to stipulate to the agree$ent. The court considers the contract as $a+ing the future crops a

fund to %e applied for the %enefit of all the enu$erated creditors" if the# chose to accept the stipulation" and if an# do not a'ail the$sel'es of it" for the %enefit of those who do. Therefore" if the other creditors decline to participate" the plaintiffs will then ha'e a right to %e paid in full. 0acobs v. Calder*ood
? /a. Ann. B=3 1>?3&

Facts 1. Defendant e8ecuted ( notes with plaintiff for the price of a house and lot" sold %# plaintiff to defendant. (. Defendant sold the propert# to Hanna" who assu$ed" as consideration of the sale" to pa# the notes" agreeing to put hi$self in the place" stead" and responsi%ilit# of Calderwood to Maco%s. *. Plaintiff instituted an action against Hanna and o%tained a decree of sei:ure and sale. The proceeds were insufficient to pa# the $ortgage. Plaintiff %rought a personal action against Hanna for the difference. ?. Plaintiff instituted a suit against defendant for the unpaid %alance of the notes" since defendant was the original de%tor and has not %een discharged %# the plaintiff. 0ssue 9hether the defendant is lia%le to plaintiff for the unpaid %alance %ecause the defendant has not %een released as de%tor4 Holding 7es" the defendant is lia%le to plaintiff %ecause he has not %een discharged fro$ de%t. Rules See Pin+ on p. *BB. 1nion Ban% of #ouisiana v. Bo*man
3 /a. Ann. 13B 1>B?&

Facts 1. Plaintiff" the third part# %eneficiar#" is suing the defendant" pro$isor" o'er the non,pa#$ent of a de%t. (. Na#le" the pre'ious owner of the land" sold the land and his shares of stoc+ in plaintiff corporation to defendant. Defendant assu$ed the de%t that Na#le owed to plaintiff.

*. Defendant paid ( install$ents" lea'ing a %alance with interest owed to the %an+" and the %an+ now as+s that the land %e sold" and a 1udg$ent against defendant personall#. ?. Defendant clai$s that Na#le pro$isee& %reached the warrant# of the sale %# clai$ing to ha'e title" %ut he didnEt" and o%tained the propert# through a fraudulent transaction. Therefore" Na#le failed to perfor$ his o%ligation under the contract of sale" and defendant raises the %reach of warrant# as a defense against plaintiff. B. DC renders 1udg$ent in fa'or of plaintiff and defendant appeals. 0ssue 9hether defendantEs propert# and defendant personall# are lia%le to plaintiff for the de%t4 Holding The defendant is not personall# lia%leF howe'er" the propert# is su%1ect to the $ortgage. Reasoning The court reasons that since Na#le failed to perfor$" plaintiff cannot enforce the contract with defendant. The# further reason that there is no reason to distur% so $uch of the 1udg$ent as enforces the $ortgage upon the land" gi'en %# Na#le to plaintiff. Further" the court states that since defendant was not pri'# to the fraudulent transaction of Na#le" he cannot %e held lia%le personall#" onl# the land can %e sei:ed in satisfaction of the de%t. -ibrebond Cor oration and 5(da%, Inc. v. &etna Casualty ) Surety Com any
B>* So.(d >?> /a. App. 1st Cir.&

Facts 1. -n <arch 3" 13>?" the State of /ouisiana e8ecuted a construction contract with .tle# Ma$es of /ouisiana" 0nc. for construction of state,wide co$$unication facilities. (. The contract called for co$pletion in ?>= da#s" and pro'ided li)uidated dela# da$ages of G>==.== per da#. *. Effecti'e -cto%er 1" 13>@" the stateEs architects issued a certificate of su%stantial co$pletion" and assessed .tle# Ma$es for li)uidated da$ages of ((* da#s at G>==.== per da#" totaling G12>"?==.==. The state withheld this a$ount fro$ pa#$ent. ?. TC found that the assess$ent of li)uidated da$ages was wrongl# withheld. 0ssue 9hether the state is entitled to li)uidated da$ages resulting fro$ the dela#4

Holding 7es" the state is entitled to 1B da#s of li)uidated da$ages" at G>==.== per da#" totaling G1("===.==. The re$ainder of the da$ages was wrongl# assessed %ecause it was the StateEs fault for that dela#. Rule A putting in default is not necessar#Ifor %reaches of contracts stipulating that the# $ust %e e8ecuted within a specific ti$e" where ti$e is of the essence" or where a specified ti$e for perfor$ing the o%ligation e8pires without perfor$ance. .lectrodata $anufacturing Cor oration v. '"e Domed Stadium Hotel, Inc.
*@( So.(d 11(( /a. App. ?th Cir. 132>&

Facts 1. Defendant had contracted with plaintiff to $anufacture and install a Croo$ status s#ste$D. (. Defendant was in the process of con'erting the %uilding into a hotel and hoped to ha'e the %uilding finished %# Fe%ruar#. *. The contract %etween plaintiff and defendant did not specif# a ti$e for suppl# and installation" %ut it did specif# the ter$s for pa#$ent as to %e paid *= da#s after installation was co$pleted. ?. Plaintiff $anufactured the s#ste$" %ut was notified %# defendant that the hotel would not %e read# for installation until <a#. B. Plaintiff conte$plated the fa%rication of the s#ste$ co$ponents in <arch" and on <arch (3" plaintiff %illed defendant G3"21@.2( for the $anufacture of the s#ste$. @. The contract did not ha'e an agree$ent to pa# for the e)uip$ent %efore its installation and there was not agree$ent fi8ing an# a$ount as a price for the uninstalled e)uip$ent. 2. Plaintiff sold the e)uip$ent to another hotel for G?== as 1un+. >. Plaintiff instituted this suit to reco'er the cost of the $anufacturing of the s#ste$. 3. DC rendered 1udg$ent in fa'or of plaintiff" and defendant appeals. 0ssues 9hat was the effect of plaintiffEs failure to put defendant in default in respect to ha'ing its %uilding specificall# wired to recei'e the s#ste$4 9hat was the effect of plaintiffEs selling to another hotel the s#ste$ co$ponents without notice to defendant se'eral $onths after %ringing this suit4

Holding
The court concludes that plaintiffEs failure to put defendant in default and plaintiffEs resale of the s#ste$ at an unreasona%le price as C1un+D without notice to defendant defeats the %alance of plaintiffEs clai$. The court dis$issed PEs action. &llen v. Steers
*3 /a. Ann. B>@" ( So.133 1>>2&

Facts 1. Plaintiff contracted with defendant to store plaintiffEs cotton at a certain rate of ?( cents per %ale. (. Defendant was una%le to store the cotton" and plaintiff had to contract with a third part# at B= cents per %ale to store the cotton. *. Plaintiff instituted this suit in da$ages for a %reach of contract to store cotton during a certain period at a stated rate per %ale. ?. Defendant clai$s that he was not put in default" a$ong other things. B. DC rendered 1udg$ent in fa'or of defendant %# re1ecting the plaintiffEs de$ands" and plaintiffs appeal. 0ssue 9hether it was necessar# to place defendant in default4 Holding 0t is not necessar# to place defendant in default. Reasoning The court reasons that the defendantEs refusal or ac+nowledged ina%ilit# to recei'e the cotton dispensed with an# such putting in default" if an# was necessar#. $oran v. 2ils"ire Insurance Com any
B(= So.(d 112* /a. App. *d Cir. 13>>&

Facts 1. Plaintiff sued his insurance co$pan# and the repair shop owner for da$ages resulting fro$ the dela# in repairing his truc+. (. Defendant pleaded a failure of putting in default as an affir$ati'e defense. *. Peterson contends that since plaintiffEs suit is for a $one# 1udg$ent %ased on dela# da$ages and his suit does not see+ specific perfor$ance" plaintiffEs suit did not constitute a putting in default. 0n order for plaintiffEs suit to %e considered a putting in default" the suit $ust %e for specific perfor$ance.&

0ssue 9hether the plaintiffEs as+ing for a $one# 1udg$ent ser'ed as putting in default and da$ages for dela#4 Holding 7es" the plaintiffEs suit ser'ed as putting defendant in default. Rule De$ands for the perfor$ance of a contract are not to %e considered ineffecti'e %ecause couched in polite ter$sF all that is necessar# is that the ter$s %e sufficient to let the o%ligor +now that perfor$ance of the contract is e8pected. Art 1331 nu$%er * filing suit for perfor$ance& Reasoning The suit does not ha'e to %e for specific perfor$ance to constitute a putting in defaultF the allegation of an e8pectation of perfor$ance is sufficient for a putting in default" as in this case. $elancon v. 'e6as Co.
>3 So.(d 1*B 13B@&

Facts 1. Plaintiff %rought suit to cancel an oil" gas" and $ineral lease %ased on se'eral grounds including defendantEs failure to pa# or tender production ro#alties fro$ the sale of gas or distillate fro$ date of initial production despite repeated oral and written de$ands %# the plaintiff.

0ssue 9hether the plaintiffEs de$ands constituted putting defendant in default4 Rule: Art. 1311 placing a de%tor in default $a# %e acco$plished 'er%all# in the presence of two witnesses. Holding 7es" the plaintiffEs de$ands constituted putting defendant in default pursuant to the Ci'il Code. Reasoning This court" as well as the trial court" reasoned that the plaintiffEs as+ing for pa#$ent of production ro#alties at least * ti$es at $eeting where other people were present constituted putting defendant in default and was a for$al de$and. A dela# of fifteen $onths for no 'alid reason is un1ustifia%le.

2aseco C"emical ) Su Facts

ly Co. v. Bayou State 8il Cor oration

*21 So.(d *=B /a. App. (d Cir. 1323&

1. Plaintiff sued defendant clai$ing that the defendant had not $ade diligent efforts to de'elop the propert# in the lease and wanted the lease cancelled. (. The trial court cancelled the lease %ecause the defendant had not diligentl# operated or de'eloped the lease as a reasona%l# prudent operator for the $utual %enefit of itself and its lessors" and had not e8hi%ited the t#pe of CfairnessD re)uired %# law in the lessor,lessee relationship. *. Defendant appealed and plaintiff answered see+ing to increase the awards $ade for fees of its e8perts and attorne#s. 0ssue 9hether there was sufficient ti$e for perfor$ance in relation to the dissolution of the lease4 Holding 7es" there was sufficient ti$e for perfor$ance and defendant failed in its o%ligation of diligent de'elop$ent. The lease should %e cancelled without additional dela#. Rule CC. Art. (=1* 5 9hen the o%ligor fails to perfor$" the o%ligee has a right to the 1udicial dissolution of the contract or" according to the circu$stances" to regard the contract as dissol'ed. 0n either case" the o%ligee $a# reco'er da$ages. Sim son v. Sim son
12? So. B*=" 1?1 So. B= 13*(&

Facts 1. Plaintiff and defendant had settled a suit" and the two parties agreed to a co$pro$ise to settle that suit. (. 0n the co$pro$ise" plaintiff <rs. Si$pson& sold to defendant <r. Si$pson& a lot and residence on Highland A'enue in Shre'eport. Howe'er" the plaintiff $aintained the usufruct. Also" the defendant granted the plaintiff the usufruct of a rent house" that he owned" on Oine Street. As part of the agree$ent" defendant was to $aintain the residences. *. The Highland propert# was to %e painted" +ept in good repair" pa#$ent of all ta8es and assess$ents" and pa#$ent of the insurance. ?. 0f defendant did not co$plete the re)uire$ents of the contract" the propert# ownership would re'ert %ac+ to plaintiff. Howe'er" plaintiff was re)uired to gi'e *= da#s written notice of the e8act $atters which the defendant failed to co$pl#

with" and onl# defendantEs failure to co$pl# with the written notice would result in the forfeiture. B. A suit was filed alleging that defendant failed to co$pl# with his o%ligation to +eep the residences in good repair" and that the plaintiff had spent GB(1.>1 of her own $one# on those repairs. @. Defendant contended that he had full# co$plied with all the o%ligations i$posed upon hi$ %# the act of co$pro$ise and settle$ent. 2. The trial court re1ected the plaintiffEs de$ands" %ut found that the defendant should $a+e certain repairs to the house on Highland and ga'e hi$ 3= da#s in which to $a+e the$. 0ssue 9hether the plaintiff could re'ert the propert# to her ownership in light of the facts presented4 Holding 6o" the plaintiff could not re'ert ownership and the defendant was gi'en 3= da#s to repair the propert#. Reasoning The court reasoned that the house was old and was not a Cfirst class $odern structure.D Defendant did not li'e within close pro8i$it# to the house and hired crews to repair the 1o% once notified %# the plaintiff. Since defendant was in good faith in his repairing the houses" he could onl# +now of an# defects upon the notice of the plaintiff. $ennella v. 5urt S. Sc"on B.&.I., #td.
323 F.(d *B2 B Cir. 133(&

Facts 1. Plaintiff agreed to purchase a painting fro$ defendant for G*B="===. She paid GB="=== up front and the re$ainder was to %e paid %# Mune 1" 13>>. (. Since plaintiff e8perience cash flow pro%le$s" defendant agreed to allow her to pa# for the painting o'er @ $onths" through Manuar# 13>3. *. The painting ne'er left the possession of the defendant. ?. Plaintiff paid an additional G3="=== on the painting. B. Plaintiff co$plained that the painting was not an authentic Oan D#c+ wor+" and de$anded authentication. Defendant ac)uiesced and had the painting authenticated. @. Plaintiff" through her counsel" repudiated the paintings 'alue" refused to $a+e an# further pa#$ents" and de$anded the return of her G1?="=== alread# paid. 2. Defendant responded %# stating that perfor$ance was due in B da#s" or he would %e forced to place the painting %ac+ in the sale stoc+.

>. Plaintiff did not repl# to the defendantEs de$ands to perfor$ance. Howe'er" she contended that the contract was an Cagree$ent to purchaseD rather than a sale. 3. Defendant wrote plaintiff and told her that the painting was placed %ac+ in the sale stoc+. He offered to refund G3B"===" which included the G?B"=== for the cost of authentication and sales co$$ission paidF or he would gi'e her G1?="=== in store credit. 1=. Plaintiff re1ected %oth offers and defendant sent the painting to ChristieEs in /ondon" where it was sold for $ore than G1.? $illion. 11. Plaintiff filed this suit" unaware of the sale in /ondon" clai$ing that she agreed to %u# onl# upon propert# authentication and 'erification. Defendant answered and counterclai$ed defa$ation. 1(. -nce plaintiff heard of the sale of the painting" she a$ended her suit clai$ing that the sale was co$plete to start with" and that the sale in /ondon constituted con'ersion. 1*. The DC concluded that plaintiff was entitled to her pa#$ents" %ut not the proceeds fro$ the /ondon sale. The clai$ for defa$ation was re1ected. !oth parties appealed. 0ssue 9hether the defendant secured a dissolution %efore the /ondon sale4 Holding 7es" the defendant secured a dissolution %efore the /ondon sale 'ia his letters de$anding perfor$ance. Rule The o%ligor $ust %e notified of his default" gi'en a certain ti$e to perfor$" and warned that the contract will %e considered dissol'ed if perfor$ance is not rendered. The ti$e set $ust %e reasona%le according to the circu$stances" and the %reach $ust %e su%stantial to 1ustif# the dissolution. Article (=1*" when read in har$on# with related articles" such as Articles (=1? and (=1>" allows e8tra1udicial dissolution where the o%ligee has recei'ed partial pa#$ent. The code $a+es clear" howe'er" that the o%ligee is lia%le for the return of an# partial pa#$ents unless he has a right to retain the$. Reasoning The court reasons that the defendantEs letters were sufficient to put plaintiff in default" a prere)uisite to dissolution %# notice. The court finds the letters sufficient to dissol'e the contract. The court further reasons that the plaintiff did not cause the defendant an# da$ages and that defendant %enefited greatl# fro$ the default of the plaintiff. Therefore" the plaintiff

is entitled to the full return of her pa#$ents with legal interest fro$ the date of sale in /ondon. Stevenson v. #avalco, Inc.
@@3 So.(d @=> /a. App. (d Cir. 133@&

Facts 1. Defendant hired plaintiff to %e 'ice president of $ar+eting. Plaintiff had to $o'e fro$ Connecticut to /ouisiana and incurred $an# e8penses in doing so. (. Fi'e $onths later" defendant fired plaintiff. *. Plaintiff sued defendant for e$plo#$ent ter$ination. Defendant filed an e8ception for no cause of action" and the e8ception was sustained. Plaintiff appeals. 0ssue 9hether plaintiff is entitled to the salar# and %enefits fro$ defendant4 Holding 6o" plaintiff is not entitled %ecause he was an at will e$plo#ee no contract&. Rule CC. Art. (2?2 5 A $an is at li%ert# to dis$iss a hired ser'ant attached to his person or fa$il#" without assigning an# reason for doing so. The ser'ant is also free to depart without assigning an# cause. 'o*n and Country v. Henderson: -acts: T ;C contractors see+ to reco'er the contract price which it alleges is due under K %etween it and defendants" Henderson. The# were supposed to re$odel the Henderson residence. The Hendersons ad$itted the e8ecution of the contract %ut denied an# inde%tedness under it %ecause the contractor had failed to perfor$ its o%ligations. The siding was i$properl# appliedF the $oldings around the window were of inferior )ualit# and had not %een painted" and the concrete porch was i$properl# constructed. PH: Plaintiff was awarded da$ages of @==. P applied for a new trial" %ut was denied. P appeals. Issue: 0s T ; C entitled to reco'er the entire contract price4 Holding: 6o. The wor+ done was not up to standard, $ost of it will ha'e to %e redone. Mudg$ent affir$ed. The da$ages were correct %ecause the owner should no %e un1ustl# enriched.

GP#: A contractor $a# reco'er the 'alue of his wor+" e'en though it was unfinished or defecti'e" and the re$ed# of the owner is to ha'e the price reduced to an a$ount necessar# to perfect or co$plete the wor+. Howe'er" this rule onl# applies where the contractor has su%stantiall# co$plied with his underta+ing as that is all the law see$s to re)uireI Silverman v. Caddo Gas and 8il Co.: -acts: suit to reco'er da$ages %ased on the alleged %reach of K to deli'er 1==" === %arrels of oil. Defendant a'erred that plaintiff had not co$plied with the contract on his part" had ad$itted his ina%ilit# to handle the oil" and was thereupon released fro$ the K. 0f the K was not a%andoned then the P woule %e in default for not pa#ing the su$ of G>B>.(= for oil de'li'ered " and therefore could nt put defendant in default" nor de$and further shipe$ents. PH: 1udg$ent rendered in fa'or of Defendant. P appeals. Holding: Affir$ed Reasoning: The plaintiff withheld the $one# in order to force defendant to ac+nowledge perfor$ance on his part. Plaintiff did not onl# not offer" %ut refused to pa#. P did not co$pl# with the contract" so he is not entitled to da$ages. Rule: Art. 131*: A part# cannot clai$ da$ages for the non,perfor$ance of a contract as to which he hi$self is in default. .lectrodata $anufacturing Cor oration v. '"e Domed Stadium Hotel, Inc.
*@( So.(d 11(( /a. App. ?th Cir. 132>&

Facts 1=. Defendant had contracted with plaintiff to $anufacture and install a Croo$ status s#ste$D. 11. Defendant was in the process of con'erting the %uilding into a hotel and hoped to ha'e the %uilding finished %# Fe%ruar#. 1(. The contract %etween plaintiff and defendant did not specif# a ti$e for suppl# and installation" %ut it did specif# the ter$s for pa#$ent as to %e paid *= da#s after installation was co$pleted. 1*. Plaintiff $anufactured the s#ste$" %ut was notified %# defendant that the hotel would not %e read# for installation until <a#. 1?. Plaintiff conte$plated the fa%rication of the s#ste$ co$ponents in <arch" and on <arch (3" plaintiff %illed defendant G3"21@.2( for the $anufacture of the s#ste$. 1B. The contract did not ha'e an agree$ent to pa# for the e)uip$ent %efore its installation and there was not agree$ent fi8ing an# a$ount as a price for the uninstalled e)uip$ent. 1@. Plaintiff sold the e)uip$ent to another hotel for G?== as 1un+. 12. Plaintiff instituted this suit to reco'er the cost of the $anufacturing of the s#ste$.

1>. DC rendered 1udg$ent in fa'or of plaintiff" and defendant appeals. 0ssues 9hat was the effect of plaintiffEs failure to put defendant in default in respect to ha'ing its %uilding specificall# wired to recei'e the s#ste$4 9hat was the effect of plaintiffEs selling to another hotel the s#ste$ co$ponents without notice to defendant se'eral $onths after %ringing this suit4

Holding
The court concludes that plaintiffEs failure to put defendant in default and plaintiffEs resale of the s#ste$ at an unreasona%le price as C1un+D without notice to defendant defeats the %alance of plaintiffEs clai$. Girault v. -euc"t 112 /a. (2@" ?1 So. B2( 13*(& PR8C.D1R&# P8S'1R., Plaintiff purchaser challenged a 1udg$ent of the Ci'il District Court" Parish of -rleans /ouisiana&" which dis$issed his suit against defendant seller to co$pel specific perfor$ance of a contract to purchase the sellerJs propert# on the sellerJs e8ception of no cause of action. -&C'S, The seller and purchaser entered into a contract for the purchase of the sellerJs propert#. The agree$ent pro'ided that 1= percent of the purchase price would %e deposited in a %an+. 0f the title to the propert# was re1ected" that $one# was to %e returned to the purchaser. The purchaser deposited the $one# in the %an+. The seller notified hi$ that she would not carr# out the agree$ent. The purchaser filed suit against her to co$pel specific perfor$ance of the contract. The trial court dis$issed the suit. ISS1.: whether in this case da$ages would %e ade)uate relief" can the P get specific perfor$ance4 H8#DI!G: The court re'ersed" holding that the e'ent of the re1ection of the title depended upon whether the title was found to %e good. 9hat the parties intended if the title was good was that the purchaser would %e %ound to ta+e the propert#. The# +new what propert# the# were %u#ing and selling" and the description the# ga'e of it in the contract was a$ple for identification. There was not onl# a pro$ise of sale" %ut a sale was partiall# e8ecuted. .nder /a. Ci'. Code Ann. art. 13(@" the purchaser was entitled to specific perfor$ance at his option" and under /a. Ci'. Code Ann. art. 13(2" he could %e awarded specific perfor$ance if da$ages would %e inade)uate relief. Da$ages would %e inade)uate relief and that the purchaser was entitled to ha'e the propert#.

81'C8$., The court set aside the 1udg$ent" o'erruled the e8ception" and re$anded the case for trial on the $erits. Cellular 8ne, Inc. v. Boyd @B* So.(d *= 133B& PR8C.D1R&# P8S'1R., Appellants for$er e$plo#ees sought re'iew of the decision fro$ the 6ineteenth Mudicial District Court in and for the Parish of East !aton Rouge" /ouisiana" which granted a preli$inar# in1unction in fa'or of appellee for$er e$plo#er enforcing a nonco$petition pro'ision. The trial court had en1oined for$er e$plo#ees fro$ engaging in the radio telephone ser'ice %usiness in certain parishes for a period of two #ears. -&C'S, For$er e$plo#ees were e$plo#ed as sales representati'es %# e$plo#er and signed se'eral nonco$petition and nondisclosure agree$ents. 9hen for$er e$plo#ees went to wor+ for a co$petitor" e$plo#er filed this suit for in1uncti'e relief asserting that for$er e$plo#ees were in 'iolation of the nonco$petition agree$ent. The trial court granted the in1unction and en1oined the$ fro$ engaging in the radio telephone ser'ice %usiness in certain parishes and further en1oined the$ fro$ directl# soliciting an# of e$plo#erJs custo$ers. For$er e$plo#ees argued" inter alia" that the trial court erred in enforcing a nonco$petition clause in an e$plo#$ent at will agree$ent %ecause the# did not actuall# solicit the custo$ers. R./E: the statute /a. R.S. (*:3(1 sa#s that there is no necessit# of pro'ing irrepara%le in1ur#. H8#DI!G: The court found e'idence that 3=B of !o#dEs custo$ers were for$erl# with Cellular one and 2*Q of /e$oineEs custo$ers shows e'idence that the nonsolicitation clause was %reached. The court affir$ed the trial courtJs ruling %ecause it was a 'alid nonco$petition agree$ent as it li$ited co$petition onl# in a %usiness si$ilar to that of for$er e$plo#er" in a specified geographic area and for up to two #ears fro$ ter$ination of e$plo#$ent. 81'C8$., The court affir$ed the 1udg$ent of the trial court issuing the preli$inar# in1unction %ecause the court concluded that the trial court properl# en1oined for$er e$plo#ees fro$ soliciting for$er e$plo#erJs custo$ers. 'olbert v. Hyatt $anagement ?3@ So (d 1=B? 13>@& PR8C.D1R&# P8S'1R., Plaintiff litigant appealed the decision of the Ci'il District Court for the Parish of -rleans /ouisiana&" which co$pelled the litigant to e8ecute docu$ents settling her personal in1ur# suit in accordance with an agree$ent reached in open court with defendant alleged tortfeasor.

8/.R/I.2, After filing a slip and fall clai$" the litigant entered into a settle$ent" which was $ade a $atter of record in testi$on# and notes of e'idence in open court. During the proceeding the trial court stated that the agree$ent was a full and final settle$ent and as+ed the litigant" LThere is no turning %ac+" do #ou understand4L The litigant responded" L7es.L The litigant later refused to sign the written release upon pa#$ent %ecause she %elie'ed that the a$ount agreed upon was to %e her net reco'er# after pa#$ent of all of her costs and e8penses" not the gross a$ount. The trial court ordered her to sign the agree$ent. -n appeal" the court affir$ed. The court held that the litigant +new that the settle$ent was her gross" and not net" reco'er# fro$ the litigation. 81'C8$., The court affir$ed the decision of the trial court" which had ordered the litigant to sign a written release with the alleged tortfeasor after the parties had entered a settle$ent stipulation in open court.

Bonneau v. Blaloc%: -&C'S: Fran+ and /url#ne !laloc+ leased propert# owned %# the$ in Ale8andria" /a. to A$erican -il Co$pan# for the purpose of constructing and operating a gasoline ser'ice station. The lease called for 1= #ears with three options to renew for fi'e #ears each. E'er#thing was in writing. PH: The trial court granted su$$ar# 1udg$ent in fa'or of Plaintiff. ISS1.: 0s plaintiff entitled to specific perfor$ance as a $atter of law4 R1#.: /a. C.C. 13>@ H8#DI!G: The 1udg$ent of the trial court is affir$ed and re$anded to the trial court for further proceedings. 0. 2eingarten Inc. v. !ort"gate $all Inc., -acts: A court
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The case was on writ of review to the !ourt of Appeal, Third !ircuit, "arish of Lafayette #Louisiana$, to determine whether the court should specifically enforce a lease by ordering the destruction of a building. The court of appeal ordered that approximately %& percent of the building be torn down and removed. OVERVIEW: The case was on review so that the court could determine whether it should specifically enforce a lease by ordering the destruction of the major part of a ' ( million building. The trial court refused to order the building ra)ed, but the court of appeal reversed, requiring that approximately %& percent of the building

be torn down and removed. *n review, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal. The court held that although specific performance was the preferred remedy for breach of a contract it could be withheld by the court when specific relief was impossible, when the inconvenience or cost of performing was greatly disproportionate to the damages caused, when the obligee had no real interest in receiving performance, or when the latter would have a substantial negative effect on the interests of third parties. The court reasoned that the cost of tearing the building down was outweighed by any actual damage caused to the plaintiff. +ecause the record presently did not provide an adequate basis for the assessment of damages, the case was remanded. OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal ordering that %& percent of the building be torn down and removed

Si9eler
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: ,efendant lessee sought review of the !ivil ,istrict !ourt for the "arish of *rleans, ,ivision L #Louisiana$, which held in favor of plaintiff lessor. The trial court argued that the trial court improperly granted the lessor's request for a preliminary injunction, and that the injunction improperly required the lessee to provide specific performance in the form of reopening and operating a store. OVERVIEW: The lessor rented commercial space to the corporation. The corporation was a subsidiary of the parent corporation, the lessee. The lessee guaranteed the corporations obligations. The corporation assigned its interest under the lease to defendant assignee. The assignee did business under the corporation's name. The assignee discontinued operations at the store that was the subject of the lease. The lessor brought an action that requested a writ of preliminary injunction. The trial court held in favor of the lessor. *n review, the court reversed. The court held that the lessor was not entitled to a preliminary injunction under La. !ode !iv. "roc. Ann. art. -%&., and La. !iv. !ode Ann. art. ./0% where the lessor had failed to show irreparable harm, failed to ma1e a prima facie showing that it would prevail on the merits, where the cost differential between the harm alleged and the cure proposed would have been grossly disproportionate, and where the specific performance sought was impracticable. OUTCOME: The court held in favor of the lessee, reversed the judgment of the trial court, and remanded the case to the trial court. The court denied the preliminary mandatory injunction that would have required the lessee to reopen and run the store in question.

Fried$an 0ron ; Suppl# Co. '. M.!. !eaird Co." 0nc 13B(&
Friedman Iron Supply v. J.B. Beaird Co. P= SELLER d= BUYER

P is seeking to recover damages from a breach of K(breach of sale) acts! " #$rchased %&& tons of scra# steel from P at '() #er gross ton and it *as to be delivered bet*een +#ril ( and ,$ne -. )/(/0 1n 2343(/. before the deliver5. the " notified P that it *as cancelling the entire order0 P re6$ested " acce#t the steel and " ref$sed to acce#t the steel or #a50 7he " breached the K *hen it sa* the market for scra# metal *as ra#idl5 declining0 Under the K the " *as to #a5 '() a ton and at the date of the breach the steel *as *orth '28 a ton0 (+fter ded$cting the #resent market val$e at Shreve#ort. the P s$ffered a loss of ')8 #er ton on the steel0 7he K called for %&& tons so the P s$ffered a loss of '4.--90) 7he seller introd$ced as evidence a trade :o$rnal *ith market 6$otations for the date *hen the breach occ$rred0 ;ss$e! <hether the co$rt had erred in $sing the market val$e of scra# steel at the date of the trial as a criterion in determining *hether P had s$ffered a loss or been de#rived of a #rofit as a res$lt of the "=s breach of K0 >olding3R$le! Yes0 7he co$rt has fo$nd that the meas$re of damages for the breach of a K of sale. *here no fra$d is sho*n. is the difference bet*een the contract #rice and the market #rice of the goods on the date of the breach. R$le! +rt0 )/2( (#age (24)0 Reasoning! ?either a P nor a " sho$ld be #ermitted to select the market val$e of a date different from that on *hich the K *as breached for the #$r#ose of determining *hether an5 loss *as s$ffered or #rofit de#rived to the detriment of either #art50 7he r$le. that the meas$re of damages for the breach of the sale of #ersonal #ro#ert5 is the difference bet*een the K #rice and the market #rice at the date of the breach of the K. is a sal$tar5 one and does not de#end on $ncertain events that ma5 occ$r sometime in the f$t$re0 1$tcome! P sho$ld be a*arded '4.--90(&0 P is entitled to recover this amo$nt as it is the difference bet*een the K #rice and the market val$e of the steel at the date the K *as breached0

Interstate Electric Co. v Frank Adam Electric Co. Facts: "o$glass Electrical @o0 had a K to install certain s*itchboards. boAes and #anel into a hotel in *hich it agreed to #$rchase from P for the #rice of '-.(-(0 <hen P received the order from "o$glass. it #laced an order *ith the ". rank +dam Electric @o0 thro$gh its manager. Keller0 Keller agreed to sell the s$##lies to P for '(. 98%0 +fter acce#ting the order. the " ref$sed to com#l5 *ith its K *hich made it im#ossible for P to to carr5 o$t its K *ith "o$glass @o0 @o$rt a*arded # '9.)4/ for damages res$lting from the breach of a K of sale0 " a##eals0 Issue: <hether the damages m$st be the difference bet*een the K #rice and the market #rice of the goods0 Holding: ?o0

Rule: 7he la* is that Bthe damages d$e the creditor for its breach are the amo$nt of the loss he has s$stained. and the #rofit of *hich he has been de#rived0 Reasoning: P=s onl5 loss *as the #rofit ('9.)4/) *hich it *o$ld have made b$t for "=s $n*arranted defa$lt0 " *as not g$ilt5 of fra$d or bad faith and is Bliable onl5 for s$ch damages as *ere contem#lated or *ere Bs$##osed to have entered onto the contem#lation of the #arties at the time of the K()/2()0 7he damages for "=s breach *as the #rofit on the K0

There was no C$ar+et priceD for these supplies as that ter$ is used. The P could not ha'e gone into the $ar+et and purchased the goods necessar# to carr# out its contract with the Douglass Co. for the reason the# were onl# for sale %# D. 0t was i$possi%le for P to go into the $ar+et and purchase the goods.
utcome: +ffirmed0

2illis v. /entrella: Facts: P owned >*B acres upon which his neigh%ors wished to hunt. The# e8ecuted a docu$ent called a hunting lease. The draft of the doc pro'ided that D were to pa# (grand plus the propert# ta8es and pro'ide 1(= hours of wor+ with a %ulldo:er. D was to $aintain all road and cree+ crossings. The D had stuc+ out certain portions of the paragraph pertaining to the %ulldo:er wor+. 0n 133(" P co$plained to D that he had failed to pro'ide do:er wor+" and had failed to $aintain the roads properl#" and was hunting too close to the PEs ho$e. 0n 133*" P e8ecuted e'iction proceedings. Court granted an in1unction. The trial court granted the e'iction %ecause D had failed to pa# the cash consideration and had a'oided or perfor$ed in a su%standard $anner the %ulldo:er wor+. Procedural: TC declared the doc was not a 'alid lease %Hc the price was not certain and deter$inate. The court awarded da$ages to P under un1ust enrich$ent. D appealed" and P is see+ing attorne# fees. 0ssue: 1& 9as there an enforcea%le lease4 (& Did the trial court err in appl#ing un1ust enrich$ent4 Rule: /a. C.C. (@@3 A lease is a s#nallag$atic contract to which consent alone is sufficient and %# which one part# gi'es the other the en1o#$ent of the thing" or his la%or" at a fi8ed price. The price should %e certain and deter$inate and should consist of $one#. art. (@21& 9hen a P confers a %enefit on a defendant in pursuance of a K supposedl# 'alid %ut in truth 'oid" the plaintiff is entitled to restitution of the %enefit conferred. B Distinct Pre,re)s: 1& an enrich$ent (& an i$po'erish$ent *& a causal relationship %etween the enrich$ent and the i$po'erish$ent ?& an a%sence of 1ustification or cause for the enrich$ent or i$po'erish$ent B& the a%sence of an# other re$ed# at law.

Holding: 1& no" the a$ount of %ulldo:er wor+ to %e done is not readil# ascertaina%le. Certain and deter$ina%le price was a%sent. (& Defendant was enriched %# en1o#ing the %enefit of hunting rights on the PEs propert# for three #ears. P was i$po'erished %# the loss of re'enue fro$ leasing the propert# at $ar+et 'alue. PEs loss was directl# related to DEs gain. He could not lease the propert# to another when he %elie'ed he has 'alidl# leased to DEsH

!reau8 '. /aird

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: "laintiff purchaser, who bought a house from an owner that hired a contractor to construct 2- houses, brought an action against defendant surety, which guaranteed the contractor's faithful performance of its wor1, on the grounds of a non3completed building contract and defective wor1. A Louisiana district court rendered judgment sustaining the surety's exception of no right or cause of action. The purchaser appealed. OVERVIEW: The trial court sustained the surety's exception on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the purchaser and the surety. *n appeal, the court reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the purchaser had the right to enforce the owner's contract with the contractor. 4A!T56 there was a contract between +elfair homes and 7id3states construction to build 2- units to be sold as homes. The plaintiff purchased one of homes from +elfair3 and is bringing this suit for a noncompleted building contract and defective wor1. The plaintiff is suing the surety on the bond. 55896 ,oes the purchaser of a home have the right to enforce the performance of the contract against the surety of the bond: ;8L96 ;.5. /6(0&.3 building contracts #bond with good and solvent surety$ La. !iv. !ode Ann. art. <&.. provided that the rights resulting from a contract relative to immovable property passed with the property so that an acquirer of the property had the right to enforce a contract for the improvement of the property made by the person from whom he acquired it. ;9A5*= =>6 The owner's contract with the contractor required the contractor to furnish a bond to guarantee the faithful performance of the contract and was binding on the parties' heirs, successors, and assigns. The language of the contract and the recording of the bond and the contract as one instrument in the county mortgage records, in compliance with ./<% La. Acts </0, rendered both the bond and the contract inseparable. Thus, the obligation that flowed from the

contract passed to the purchasers as the owner's successors and assigns. OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's judgment sustaining the exception of no right or cause of action, remanded the case to the trial court for hearing on the merits, and ordered the surety to pay the costs of the appeal.