Professional Documents
Culture Documents
c
c
? !
? Mutual promises are not enforceable unless consideration for them is present. (Best
v. Southland)
?
"c
? c
i.? When a promisor aggress to purchase services from a promisee on a per unit basis
but the agreement specifies no quantity and the parties did not intend that the
promisor should take all of his needs from the promisee there is no enforceable
agreement. (De Los Santos v. Great Western Sugar)
? 0as may be loadeddz
ii.? Satisfaction clauses do not render a contract illusory or raise problems of mutuality
of performance. (Mattei v. Hopper)
iii.? In agreements which seem to reserve the right to cancel at any time it is reasonable
through interpretation to take the position that notice of cancellation is required
and even though notice may be given at any time it constitutes a detriment, hence, is
valid consideration. (Sylvan Crest)
1.? The governmentǯs obligation to give delivery instructions or notice of
cancellation within a reasonable amount of time constituted
consideration. Then Sylvanǯs promise to deliver in accordance with the
instructions is consideration. Thus the contract is valid.
iv.? While an express promise may be lacking the whole writing may be instinct with
obligation- an implied promise- imperfectly expressed so as to form a valid contract.
(Lady Duff)
v.? 0 very contract has some degree of indefiniteness and while there must be mutual
assent as to the essential terms, parties should be held to their promises and courts
should not become petty or over particular in interpreting contract terms.dz-Sloan
p.47 (Angelou)
? c
!#
$ c
%
&
i.? If neither party to a contract intends it to be binding then it is unenforceable and no
contract is deemed to exist. (Keller v. Holderman- $15 watch for $300)
ii.? Where a party has no expectation that his remarks will be taken as legally binding no
contract exists. (Brown v. Finney- bushels of coal)
?
'
?
(
i.? The party who seeks to interpret the terms of a contract in a sense narrower than
their everyday use there is the burden of persuasion to show, and if that party fails to
support its burden it faces dismissal of its complaint. (Frigailment v. BNS- Chicken
case)
1.?
2.? THIS WILL B ON TH FINAL
? $ c c
)?
*? +
,
-
(
(
.? !
(/(!
0? -c
1
GO TO P. 70 for RUL S b-h
2? !
/
3? ,
/#
-
4? c
c
5
,
i.? xtrinsic evidence regarding the circumstances of making the contract is admissible
to ascertain the intent of the parties whether or not there is ambiguity on the face of
the agreement. (Berg v. Hudesman- 99 year ground lease)
i.? (MINUS)