Need good supplement for contracts

[exgratia]

Here's a snippet from my syllabus for SP semester in contracts:

"[Having dealt with issues of contract formation]we now turn to questions of how contracts are interpreted and enforced. We will begin by considering
circumstances under which parties may void or excuse contractual obligations. We then turn to
what happens when parties disagree about what their contract means and learn how courts deal
with ambiguous, extraneous, and missing terms in an agreement. We will then consider issues of
performance and breach, including what remedies a court may apply to compensate the nonbreaching
party. Finally, we will also examine the rights of any third parties who might be
affected by the breach."

Any suggestions? I suppose I am looking for more of a hornbook/treatise than a commerical outline. However, if the outlines are more conducive to learning about unanticipated circumstances, express, implied, and open terms, anticipatory repudiation, material breach versus substantial performance, the perfect tender rule, along with the panoply of remedies, I wouldn't be opposed to investing in one.

Thanks for your suggestions.

[SEC_2L]

That sounds like a pretty standard contracts class. I would suggest the E&E personally...

[exgratia]

That sounds like a pretty standard contracts class. I would suggest the E&E personally...

I've heard some fairly negative things about the E&E book. Any other suggestions?

[robelguapo]

Save your money....The Interwebs is great.

Also, if you haven't joined yet join BarBri. Watch the 1L review videos, they are magical.

[NYC3L]

E&E sucked. I enjoyed the sailboat book. It's short, but then I actually read the whole thing.

[Stole Your Nose!]

All E&Es are horrible.  The sailboat book for this one was by Chirelstein.  It was excellent. 

[,.,.,.;.,.,.]

I wish Chirelstein covered more cases.  I got the gist of Wunder v. Groves without reading, and a few other big expectation damages cases like Hawkins and Neri, but he left me hanging on others, like Sullivan v. O'Connor.

It depends on your professor.  Mine doesn't cover the UCC -- strange as it may sound -- so we have to wade through the common law.

I loathe reading Ks cases.  Not only are they incredibly boring and totally irrelevant to my transactional-uninterested self, but they're poorly written and poorly argued as well.

[UFBoldAsLove]

I hated the E&E's problems, but felt like the actual chapters really helped me.

[UFBoldAsLove]

I am not at all interested in a transactional practice, but I loved my contracts class.  And a lot of litigation happens over contracts, so it's not really irrelevant to non-transactional types. 

Also (and you do this a lot) I have no idea what you're talking about when you just list a bunch of case names. If you want us to have any idea what you're talking about, you should say "The Hairy Hand Case" or "The Plastic Surgery Chick."  Case names are 100% irrelevant to my life.

TITCR... I particularly liked "The Drunk Guys in the Bar" and "The Guy w/the Mink Coat." 

[robelguapo]

What about the 'What exactly is a chicken?' case? My god...I had no idea.