Part A - Contract law Introduction to Contract Law A. Contracts defined 1. Contracts are enforceable promises, or voluntary agreements that govern economic exchange (private ordering) 2. Free market economy relies on the ability of private parties to enter these exchanges and obtain gains from trade B. Contract law purposes 1. Retrospectively: provide parties with their bargain (including the remedy for failure to perform) a. Altruistic/Cooperation v. Opportunistic Behaviour b. Achieve socially desirable results 2. Prospectively: law sets the rules a. Sorts enforceable from unenforceable promises b. Provides the parties a convenient set of default rules c. Determines which rules should be mandatory 3. Limits to enforceability a. Lack of …show more content…
Restitution: Places the promisor in the position he would have been had the promise not been made. “Disgorge profits from breaching party” Part II: Contract Formation I. The Objective Theory of Assent Requirement of a bargain 1. A contract is created by a bargain with a manifestation of mutual assent and consideration 2. Comment: “Meeting of the minds” has been changed to “manifestation of mutual assent” because mental reservation does not impair obligation Texaco v. Pennzoil (281): Texaco argues that their meetings with Getty show they were not assenting to a deal with Pennzoil 1. Outcome: Court says SEC and press release were outward and objective manifestations, whereas Texaco-Getty conversations cannot be considered by jury because they were secret manifestations to which Pennzoil was not a party 2. All that matters is objective intent to be bound Conduct as manifestation of assent 1. Written or spoken words or acts 2. Not manifestation unless party intends to engage in conduct and knows other party may infer assent from conduct 3. If conduct manifests assent without actual assent, then contract may be voidable Ambiguity A. Objective Theory of Assent: doesn’t matter what others meant by what they said or did—what matters is objective account of what they …show more content…
Non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it 2. Cost-saving aspect that buyer gets lower prices in saving seller negotiation fees B. Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute (424): Shute bought cruise in WA with forum clause set for FL. Boarded in LA, injured on deck mat, sued for negligence, and Carnival moved for Summary Judgment bc forum clause 1. Outcome: Court held forum clause enforceable bc FL court would be competent jurisdiction and the Shutes had notice of the clause a. Policy argument: forum clause lets passengers benefit from reduced fares by saving cruise line money in limiting forum 2. Problem: bad faith motive of deterring passengers from suing a. If some kind of negotiation takes place, it’s easier to infer a meeting of the minds 3. Laywer’s mistake was conceding notice, because clause would not be enforceable 4. Dissent: they lacked reasonable time to read/reject terms since they only received them when they arrived, when it was too late/risky to cancel their trip. a. If not bargained-for, should not be enforceable. b. Notice doesn’t matter if you can’t decide whether you want to abide or reject Part B –
The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.
The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The verdict of the jury found the Defendant liable and was in favor of the Plaintiffs. Defendant then filed a motion for a new trial for judgment as a matter of law.
Procedural History: The initial class action lawsuit was filed in California state court, which denied a dismissal motion. The defendant appealed the decision which was still sustained
A’s promise to B can only be enforced by B if B has given consideration for that promise;
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires summary judgment for the moving party when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Tarin v. County of Los Angeles, 123 F.3d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir.1997). Here, Navigators moves for summary judgment on a claim it would have to prove at trial. It must therefore prove each element of its claim by undisputed facts. E.g., Cabo Distrib. Co. v. Brady, 821 F.Supp. 601, 607 (N.D.Cal.1992).
Plaintiffs contend the forum selection clause limits them to Virginia state court, where a class action remedy would be unavailable to them; this, they contend, violates California public policy favoring consumer class actions and renders the forum selection clause unenforceable.” (Doe 1 v AOL LLC, 2009) The district court granted AOL’s motion and dismissed the action.
Summary Judgment: Because the issue was discrete, related to the ownership of the domain name, the court ruled a summary judgment.
The district court had jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this issue involves a federal question. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on March, 2018. Petitioner’s filed their notice of appeal within the 30-day limit allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which provides for review of all final decisions of district courts.
Enforceable contract Peter v. Don. Peter will have an enforceable contract with Don if he can show that all the required elements of a contract are present. If there is a contract between the two then it will be governed by the common law requirements of an enforceable contract instead of the Uniformed Commercial Code, which would be used if their agreement had involved the sale of goods. In order for a contract to be formed between Peter and Don the two must react mutual consent Mutual consent can generally be formed through the form of an (A) offer and (B) acceptance. An additional requirement for both parties to show (C) consideration is also
Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in
Both parties consulted their attorneys whose guidance instructed them that they did not have to disclose the information. The motivating factor in both decisions was to protect the livelihood of their companies. The facts of the information that had been revealed to each company had not been proven.
be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at
Rule : : Contract formation requires mutual assent (offer and acceptance), consideration, and no viable defenses to contract formation.
On the one hand it is evident that terms implied at common law can be ‘implied in law’ or ‘implied in fact’. Terms implied as a matter of fact are said to give effect to unexpressed intentions of the
In addition, little attention has been given so far to process and procedures. We attempt to gather systematic evidence on these issues; beyond an extensive survey of public sources currently available, we have extended our research through access to non-public sources including submissions to the regulators and other non- public research done at the time of the transaction. We have also conducted interviews with the regulators on both sides of the Atlantic and lawyers representing parties on both sides of the argument3. Part I briefly reviews the Commission’s decision, discusses possible sources of divergence and dismisses some of them as highly unlikely. Part II provides a critical review of the Commission’s decision and highlights differences with the DoJ’s analysis.