Prof. Ketron's contracts class restatements from his slides.
Terms in this set (77)
Agreements and negotiations prior to or contemporaneous with the adoption of a writing are admissible in evidence to establish
(a) that the writing is or is not an integrated agreement;
(b) that the integrated agreement, if any, is completely or
partially integrated;
(c) the meaning of the writing, whether or not integrated;
(d) illegality, fraud, duress, mistake, lack of consideration, or other invalidating cause;
(e) ground for granting or denying rescission, reformation, specific performance, or other remedy.
American Government
1st EditionGlen Krutz
412 solutions
Introductory Business Statistics
1st EditionAlexander Holmes, Barbara Illowsky, Susan Dean
2,174 solutions
Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, Being
13th EditionMichael R Solomon
449 solutions
Principles of Economics
8th EditionN. Gregory Mankiw
1,335 solutions
Recommended textbook solutionsMyers' Psychology for AP
2nd EditionDavid G Myers
900 solutions
Century 21 Accounting: General Journal
11th EditionClaudia Bienias Gilbertson, Debra Gentene, Mark W Lehman
1,009 solutions
Mathematics with Business Applications
6th EditionMcGraw-Hill Education
3,760 solutions
Introductory Business Statistics
1st EditionAlexander Holmes, Barbara Illowsky, Susan Dean
2,174 solutions
Recommended textbook solutionsPrinciples of Economics
8th EditionN. Gregory Mankiw
1,335 solutions
The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography, AP Edition
13th EditionJames M. Rubenstein
216 solutions
Century 21 Accounting: General Journal
11th EditionClaudia Bienias Gilbertson, Debra Gentene, Mark W Lehman
1,009 solutions
Introductory Business Statistics
1st EditionAlexander Holmes, Barbara Illowsky, Susan Dean
2,174 solutions
No. The parties did not form a contract. A revocable offer terminates immediately when the offeror notifies the offeree that the offer has been revoked. Once an offer is terminated, it may no longer be accepted. One type of irrevocable offer is an option contract, i.e., when an offeror keeps an offer open for a limited time in exchange for the offeree giving something of value. Essentially, the offeree provides consideration in exchange for the irrevocability of the offer.
Here, the man originally said the offer was irrevocable, but the woman gave no consideration for the promise to keep the offer open. Without consideration, no option contract was formed. The offer thus was revocable, and it terminated immediately when the man communicated the revocation to the woman on May 28. Once the offer was terminated, the woman could no longer accept it. Thus, the parties did not form a contract.
No. The acceptance was not effective. Under the mailbox rule, acceptance by promise occurs when a properly addressed and stamped letter accepting an offer is deposited in the mail. This applies regardless of when or whether the offeror receives the acceptance. However, if an offeree first mails a rejection of the offer and then has a change of mind and mails an acceptance, the mailbox rule does not apply, and whichever letter the offeror receives first will determine whether the parties have a contract.
Here, the offeree first rejected the offer and then decided to accept. Because the offeree mailed the rejection first, the mailbox rule did not apply, and the first letter to reach the offeror determined whether the parties had a contract. The rejection arrived first, so it terminated the offer. Thus, because the acceptance arrived after the offer had been terminated, it was not effective.
Yes. The renewal option was too indefinite to be enforced. If parties defer agreement on a material contract term to some future time, the parties have not yet concluded a contract. In a lease renewal, the rental price is often a material term. If the renewal agreement does not contain a price term, the agreement will be too indefinite unless it (1) contains an objective formula or method for determining rent or (2) states that the rent determination is contingent on an objective extrinsic event, condition, or standard.
Here, the renewal option contained no rental price. The parties provided no formula to calculate the rent at a future time, nor did they state that rent was to be determined contingent on an event, condition, or standard. Rather, they simply left the rent to future negotiation. Thus, because the parties deferred agreement on a material term, they did not conclude a contract.
No. The lawyer is not correct, because quitting smoking is considered a detriment to the man for consideration purposes. A promisee furnishes consideration by incurring a legal detriment in exchange for the consideration to be received from the promisor. In the context of consideration doctrine, "detriment" does not have the common meaning of harm, injury, or prejudice. Rather, detriment has the technical meaning of giving up a legal right.
Here, the man had the legal right to smoke. His aunt's promise to pay him $5,000 induced him to stop smoking. Because the man gave up his legal right to smoke, quitting smoking was a detriment to the man for consideration purposes, even if it ultimately benefited his health. Thus, the man giving up smoking constitutes consideration for the aunt's promise, and the lawyer's argument is incorrect.
No. The lawyer is not correct, because quitting smoking is considered a detriment to the man for consideration purposes. A promisee furnishes consideration by incurring a legal detriment in exchange for the consideration to be received from the promisor. In the context of consideration doctrine, "detriment" does not have the common meaning of harm, injury, or prejudice. Rather, detriment has the technical meaning of giving up a legal right.
Here, the man had the legal right to smoke. His aunt's promise to pay him $5,000 induced him to stop smoking. Because the man gave up his legal right to smoke, quitting smoking was a detriment to the man for consideration purposes, even if it ultimately benefited his health. Thus, the man giving up smoking constitutes consideration for the aunt's promise, and the lawyer's argument is incorrect.