Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Funny Contract Hypo...  (Read 8554 times)

Louder Than Bombs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2004, 07:20:15 PM »
All I can say is that swifty and prosser are going to fail contracts. If you think that a promise cannot be consideration, well...you have some serious studying to do. Just look at the contracts you form in your own life! When you contract with the cell phone company, what do you think they are bargaining for? Your PROMISE to pay. The K is formed when you sign on the dotted line (that is, make a promise) - not when you first 'tender' any payment.

Dean Prosser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2004, 08:33:54 PM »
Come on bombs, now your in the conjecture club.  Of course a promise can be supported by consideration.  Most contracts are promises supported by consideration!  But as the great lawyer that you are, you should also see the Defense argument, and not the obvious Bi lateral K argument, right?  I hope you do or else you will be surprised many times in your career. 

Louder Than Bombs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2004, 09:06:00 PM »
Come on bombs, now your in the conjecture club.  Of course a promise can be supported by consideration.  Most contracts are promises supported by consideration!  But as the great lawyer that you are, you should also see the Defense argument, and not the obvious Bi lateral K argument, right?  I hope you do or else you will be surprised many times in your career. 

Your assertion that 'coming over' was part of the bargain is completely ludicrous. Coming over is merely a suggested time and manner of performance. What if Jane had said she would 'bring over a check'...is there no K if she pays in cash?

That's all I have to say about this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. I suggest you pick up Calamari and Perillo on Contracts, and read the chapter on mutal assent very carefully.

Dean Prosser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« Reply #23 on: November 11, 2004, 09:23:20 PM »
Come on bombs, now your in the conjecture club.  Of course a promise can be supported by consideration.  Most contracts are promises supported by consideration!  But as the great lawyer that you are, you should also see the Defense argument, and not the obvious Bi lateral K argument, right?  I hope you do or else you will be surprised many times in your career. 

Your assertion that 'coming over' was part of the bargain is completely ludicrous. Coming over is merely a suggested time and manner of performance. What if Jane had said she would 'bring over a check'...is there no K if she pays in cash?

That's all I have to say about this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. I suggest you pick up Calamari and Perillo on Contracts, and read the chapter on mutal assent very carefully.

Talk about context dropping, do you work for the NY Times? 

"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."

Louder Than Bombs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2004, 09:34:14 PM »

"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."

The only problem is SHE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE OFFER BY PROMISE WHEN SHE AGREED OVER THE TELEPHONE.

camelbx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
  • 164/2.95
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2004, 11:05:11 PM »
The fact that people are still arguing with Louder is very reassuring to me that there are people who do not get K at all. :P

I say this, I just finished Contracts I; and took the final. I'm on the quarter system.

Louder Than Bombs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2004, 11:10:19 PM »
The fact that people are still arguing with Louder is very reassuring to me that there are people who do not get K at all. :P

I say this, I just finished Contracts I; and took the final. I'm on the quarter system.

(A) What do you mean?
(B) What is K's I? Mutual Assent (Offer and Acceptance?)

Louder Than Bombs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2004, 11:27:58 PM »

To stray slightly from the issue, the simple fact that something identifies itself as an "offer" is not dispositive that it is, in fact, an offer.  The offer is that which creates a power of acceptance in the offeree.  Ads generally fail as offers because they usually do not specify who has the power to accept, they often do not specify a value of the offered goods, and they almost always fail to manifest an intention to be legally bound.  A famous example of an ad that IS an offer is Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1 Q.B. 256 (1893).


I just quickly want to point out that an there is actually no need for an intention to be 'legally bound'. When we speak of intent we are speaking of an intent to ENTER A BARGAIN. The classic example is that two ignorant persons may enter a contract to exchange a cow for a horse, even if they have don't know there is such a thing as a law of contracts that enforces promises to exchange.

Secondly, that the use of the word 'offer' doesn't necessarily make something an offer is true, BUT...this is mainly relevent in the context of price quotations. In the context it was used, the word offer meant 'manifestation to enter a bargain, as viewed by a reasonable person in the situation of the other party'.

Finally, the Murray take on Bi vs. Uni K's...well, if that helps you, that's great. But really, saying that there is a 'duty' is just another way of saying there is a promise outstanding.

camelbx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
  • 164/2.95
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2004, 11:29:05 PM »
(a) I mean I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with you.
(b) Contracts I, for us addressed, Formation, Promissory Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, Parol Evidence, Warranties, Statute of Frauds, Battle of Forms, couple of other things I can't recall. We're on the quarter system and Contracts is two quarters long.

Louder Than Bombs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2004, 11:36:38 PM »
see my reply under "K's"...