Contract Quizz

[Dicta]

Distinguish Webb v McGowin from Mills v Wyman and Manwill v Oyler
(moral obligation and material benefit rule)....
Ok, big boy, let's see how you do with this one.....

[Dicta]

How does UCC 2-209 differ from common law?

[jeffjoe]

Distinguish Webb v McGowin from Mills v Wyman and Manwill v Oyler
(moral obligation and material benefit rule)....
Ok, big boy, let's see how you do with this one.....

Haven't got a clue.  I learn legal principles, not case names.

[jeffjoe]

How does UCC 2-209 differ from common law?

No consideration neded for written modifications.

[Dicta]

ok, distinguish moral obligation (lack of consideration) and the material benefit rule...

Distinguish Webb v McGowin from Mills v Wyman and Manwill v Oyler
(moral obligation and material benefit rule)....
Ok, big boy, let's see how you do with this one.....

Haven't got a clue.  I learn legal principles, not case names.

[jeffjoe]

the court will not consider the adequacy of consideration. 

moral obligation itself is not an issue.

ok, distinguish moral obligation (lack of consideration) and the material benefit rule...

Distinguish Webb v McGowin from Mills v Wyman and Manwill v Oyler
(moral obligation and material benefit rule)....
Ok, big boy, let's see how you do with this one.....

Haven't got a clue.  I learn legal principles, not case names.

[Dicta]

past performance is not consideration unless there is a pre existing duty (parent must pay for another's care of minor child).
Moral obligation is not consideration unless there has been a MATERIAL BENEFIT bestowed (man who injured himself trying to save another)

[jeffjoe]

Moral obligation is not consideration unless there has been a MATERIAL BENEFIT bestowed (man who injured himself trying to save another)

But the moral obligation is not an issue even then.  it is the material benefit that imposes a duty.  yes, no?

[Dicta]

yes, you are right. I mixed my apples with oranges there. but see, I am learning, YAY!

[Dicta]

THOROUGHLY explain Pevar....