Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OBJECTIVE THEORY
OFFER
CASES
FACTORS
HAS THE OFFER BEEN ACCEPTED?
UNILATERAL CONTRACTS
2
3
3
4
UCC 2-207
CONSIDERATION 71
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
QUASI-CONTRACTS
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
Objective Theory
Reasonable Person Standard
How would a reasonable person understand the manifestation
Requires mutualbut not mentalassent. The secret thoughts and desires of
the parties are immaterial.
Lucy v. Zimmer - The law imputes to a person an intention
corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts.
The joke was kept a secret.
Embry - Intention must always be determined by the conduct,
acts, and expressed declarations.
Pepsi Co. To determine if an offer has genuinely been made,
would a reasonable person believe that the advertisement or
solicitation was an offer.
Offer
o
o
o
o
Manifestation
Of a willingness to enter into a bargain
So as to make another conclude that his assent is invited
And will conclude it (leaving nothing else to be determined)
* Ads arent usually offers. Too vague. Not enough specificity. Not
targeted at a single entity.
Cases
o Lonergan (Joshua Tree for sale in newspaper) No.
Too many details not spelled out.
Form letter--plaintiff knew others were also making offers.
o Lefkowitz (mink fur for $1) yes.
Specific (1st person).
Cant add conditions once someone accepts.
Factors
Language used
Specificity and detail
Customs and practices in the business
Context of communication
Multiplicity of acceptance problem
Hypo 4-3 (p. 113) UCC 2-205 Option contracts ~ firm offers
o Definitions
Merchant [offeror] 2 - 104
Goods 2 - 105
< 3 months 2 - 205
Signed 1 201
Offeror cant refuse performance (e.x. the promised payment) 45
UCC 2-207
(2) (c) objection has already been given
(2) (b) material surprise or hardship
(1) is there a contract? (definite and seasonable)
(2) what are the terms? * Do merchant analysis - They are
accepted
Merchant analysis 2 - 104(1 & 3)
(a)
(b) material changes resulting in surprise or hardship
(c)
o (3) When there is no contract, performance -> contract
o
o
o
o
Consideration 71
Performance or return promise, bargained for, must be mutual inducement
Hamer v. Sidway Forebearance
A waiver of any legal right at the request of another party of a
sufficient consideration of a promise.
R2d71
1. Promisor must want it
2. Getting the performance/return promise must be condition of
performance
Stonestreet p. 162
Naked promise. Plaintiff promised nothing and gave nothing in return
Gave promise after well dug. Not because of. Not motivated/induced by
BATSAKIS v. DEMOTSIS (p.164)
R2d Section 71 applies here:
the person making the promise actually wants it and only if the prospect of
receiving it is part of the motivation for entering into the contract.
Promises
Illusory Promise
Ex: "Promise to pay me $5,000 and I MAY give up smoking"
To be consideration, it has to be a real promise.
Illusory promise is when the person is not bound to do anything (they
are NOT considerations).
Conditional Promises
Ex: "I promise to pay you $10,000 if X happens"
A conditional promise is consideration if the condition is outside the
control of the promisor.
Such as some Aleatory contracts aka gambling contracts (such as
insurance policy)
The insurance co. promises to pay to repair your car if it is damages (a
condition over which the insurance co has no control)
Alternative Promises
Ex: "If you promise to pay me $10,000, I'll promise to do either A or B,
my choice"
If the 2 promises, taken separately, would be consideration, then the
promise is consideration.
Kirksey v. Kirksey p. 189
Moving wasnt a requirement by design, but rather implicit in accepting
the promise. He didnt want her to move, just offered this if she did.
Not a bargained for exchange.
Frishman
Implied in - fact
Palmer v. Dehn
implied a promise that Dehn would forbear to bring his tort claim.
Past Consideration
Past promise/performance becomes basis for subsequent promise. Is it
bargained for?
Mills v. Wyman p. 219
Plaintiff charitably took in someone who was sick while father was out.
Father promised to pay for cost of care. Reneges. Plaintiff sued.
Consideration (care of son) took place before father promised to pay.
=>was not provided to induce father to pay.
Son was not a minor, so Father wasnt legally obligated to provide for
his care.
Webb v. McGowin p. 221 Material Benefit 86 (Minority Rule)
The fact that he paid the money originally lends credence that he
would have requested it beforehand if he could have.
Promissory Estoppel