Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Dean Prosser

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
41
General Board / Re: Law School and Small Practice...
« on: November 09, 2004, 09:47:23 AM »
Law school will give you the tools, but it is up to you, the individual, as to what kind of lawyer you will be.   

42
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 08, 2004, 01:58:14 PM »
I'm just wondering if you all got his one yet:

Mary posts an ad in her local newspaper advertising her Corvette for sale and the asking price in the ad said 6000.00.  Jane calls up Mary, doesn't even want to look at the car, and offers Mary 6000.00 for the Corvette and informs Mary that she will come later that night with 6000.00 and to pick up the car.  Mary agrees, she is happy she sold the car on the first day, and got she was aking for.


There is something funny about this Hypo, and I can't put my finger on it!  I see the Bi K in this, but is it that clear?   

Jane: Offers (Master of Offer) $6k AND she will come to pick up the car - offeror - can Mary accept by a verbal Yes (a promise and a Bi K, or accepts by turning the car over to Jane - uni k)

Mary:  Accepts offer to give up the car provided she comes over with $6k and picks up the car - Conditional acceptance on Jane's performance.  At This Point (not later in the hypo) If Jane did not come over, would there be a breach??? 

Here is why it may be tricky:  From a reasonable offeree (Mary is now the offeree) position, the offer is ambiguous, thus indifferent, meaning *Mary* can accept either by promise or performance.  Common Law would presume Bilateral, Modern Law would presume either.  With that, Mary could bring a defense that she was accepting the ambiguous offer through performance, and Jane did not perform and thus, she rejected the offer when she sold the car to someone else.  However, this is a big reverse because Jane is the one who would commence performance, not Mary, the offeree!  Anyway, just trying to analyze from a different angle.  Yes, a bi K is the strong  argument, but to me,  it's not that obvious...

43
General Board / Re: offer/acceptance hypo
« on: November 05, 2004, 02:23:07 PM »
Other possible issues to discuss:

Termination of a Revocable Offer - Lapse of time, typically an offer is revoked if it is not accepted then and there.  I do see that there was a promise to keep the offer open, however, an option contract was never formed because the offeree did not give up a legal detriment, and since Jones is not a merchant (UCC 2-205), the offer may have lapsed. 

As discussed, there could have been an "Indirect Revocation" when it was learned that the bike was on the auction block. 

Please correct me if I am wrong...

44
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: I don't care anymore
« on: November 04, 2004, 12:31:12 PM »
Thanks Dean Tonsing, that is very helpful at this point of the semester.

Dean Prosser

45
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 01, 2004, 09:25:17 PM »

Good Point Bombs.  However, would Jane be bound to pay the 6K just because she "said so." 


Yes. That is why we have contract law. A contract is not a piece of paper - it is a relationship between parties that defines their obligations towards one another. A contract may be formed through words (both written and oral), conduct, or in some cases, even silence (that is, silence may lead to an acceptance)...


That's Deep  :)  Bombs, your opinion is duly noted.

46
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 01, 2004, 07:45:32 PM »
PS - re last post about going over to the bank to get a loan, or driving over to get the car is consideration... it would be more clear if I said performance, not consideration, since I take a unilateral approach. 

47
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 01, 2004, 07:38:11 PM »
You are correct - the offer is not the newspaper advertisement, but an invitation to open up bidding.  In such a situation, the offer would be the tendering of the $6k, which Jane never did.  And Mary would accept by actually taking the money.  There are a number of issues besides this that may be stated. 

Umm...no. You're dead wrong. A PROMISE to pay someone $6K for a car that has been thoroughly described is an OFFER (it's a promise, no? It's sufficiently definite, is it not?)...Jane need not 'tender' the money. The scenario describes a valid contract, formed when accepted by Mary over the phone. Sorry.

Good Point Bombs.  However, would Jane be bound to pay the 6K just because she "said so."  Where is the consideration until the actual tendering of the money?  Perhaps consideration would be as little as driving over to pick up the car...  but the facts tell us otherwise:

"Jane calls later that night and asks if it is a good time to come by. Mary said "sorry, I already sold it, and got 9000.00"  Jane is outraged, she tells Mary that they had a contract, (verbal) offer, acceptance(meeting of the minds) and consideration. (6000.00)."

But the $6k surely is not consideration, yet - maybe if she went to the bank to get a loan for 6K, but the facts are silent... so with that, I run with a unilateral contract theory.  But, I may be wrong. 

48
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 01, 2004, 03:45:37 PM »
Of course a bilateral contract is enforceable, in fact, most contracts are bilateral.  In this situation, repeat, in this situation (courts usually interpret this as a unilateral contract), tendering the money would be the offer.  Why?  What if Jane never shows up with the money, would the courts force this sale?  Perhaps on a Promissory Estoppel theory.  However, with these facts and no evidence of detrimental reliance, if Jane is not bound, then why should Mary be.

49
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 01, 2004, 02:53:28 PM »
Ok, I know I'm not in law school yet, but this cannot be correct.  Although I agree that a newspaper advertisement does not generally constitute an offer but is rather an invitation to bargain, that is not where this hypo ends.  The offer is by Jane to buy the car for $6,000, which Mary happiliy accepts.  Offer, acceptance, consideration.  Done. 

There may be other more subtle reasons that the contract was appropriately revoked, but I just can't buy the "newspaper advertisement does not constitute an offer".

Someone set me straight.

You are correct - the offer is not the newspaper advertisement, but an invitation to open up bidding.  In such a situation, the offer would be the tendering of the $6k, which Jane never did.  And Mary would accept by actually taking the money.  There are a number of issues besides this that may be stated. 

50
General Board / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: October 30, 2004, 12:08:21 AM »
Will you give a one sentence answer!  (was the add inviting offers, or is the tender of the money the actual offer?)  And what is so funny about this, I was expecting hobits, gas leaks, airplane dust, poo and apple turnover cakes for funny! 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6