Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Contracts - Coggle Diagram

- - - - A Seal or Writing
        
        SKF v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board - sealed instrument implies intent to be legally bound
        
        Taylor v. Fred Clark Felt Company - rebuttable presumption: written instrument = consideration
        
        Pillans v. Van Mierop - written promises
      - Implied Inducement (De Cicco v. Schweizer)
      - Nominal and Recited Consideration
        
        Option Contracts
        
        U.C.C. § 2-205 Firm Offers
        
        Lewis v. Fletcher (false recital of consideration)
        
        Real Estate Co. of Pittsburgh v. Rudolph
        
        Restatement § 87 - Option Contract
        
        Schnell v. Nell (nominal consideration)
      - Timing of Exchange
        
        Cooke v. Oxley (1790) - timing of exchanged promises
        
        Payne v. Cave (1789) - timing of contracts by auction (U.C.C. 2-328)
        
        Adams v. Lindsell (1818) - timing of contracts by mail (mailbox rule)
      - Outward Manifestation
        
        Lucy v. Zehmer - "joke" assent
        
        Keller v. Holderman - frolic and banter
        
        Raffles v. Wichelhaus - same bargain, same words (Peerless from Bombay)
    - - Waiver
        
        Fitzgerald v. Hubert Herman (retraction of waiver)
        
        Clark v. West - Material part of contract can't be waived
        
        Moore v. Lerma - infer intent from intentional conduct
      - Modification
        
        Pinnel's Case, Foakes v. Beer - Partial payment of debt
        
        Lumber Enterprises, Inc. v. Hansen - good faith test
        
        Gross Valentino Printing Co. v. Clarke - modification involving "goods" doesn't require consideration
        
        U.C.C. § 2-209 - Modification, Rescission, and Waiver
        
        Angel v. Murray - mutual modification
        
        Sugarhouse Finance Co. v. Anderson - Accord & Satisfaction
        
        Schwartzreich v. Baumann-Basch - mutual rescission/new consideration
        
        Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Domenico - coercion
        
        Pittsley v. Houser - predominant factor test for goods/services
    - - Leonard v. Pepsico - advertisements
      - U.C.C. § 2-204. Formation in General
      - Foster v. Ohio State - changed terms = counteroffer (mirror image rule)
      - Termination
        
        Dickinson v. Dodds - Offeror may withdraw offer at any time
        
        Restatement § 43 - Indirect Communication of Revocation
        
        Akers v. Sedberry - face to face offer
        
        In Re Severtson - terminates at death
        
        Restatement § 45 - Partial Performance creates option contract
        
        Ragosta v. Wilder - preparation for a performance
        
        Drennan v. Star Paving - Promissory Estoppel, contractor/subcontractor
      - Restatement § 24 Offer Defined
    - - Types
        
        Promise
        
        Gleeson v. Frahm
        
        Restatement § 32 - Promise or Performance
        
        Performance
        
        Simmons v. United States - unilateral contract or gift (fish)
        
        Notice of Acceptance
        
        Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Black - notice for guarantor
        
        Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball - notice
        
        Restatement § 54 - notification to offeror
        
        Asmus v. Pacific Bell - notice in employment contracts
      - Silence
        
        Lee v. Sheller v. Stauffer - PO/shipment, last shot rule
        
        Josephine & Anthony Corp. v. Horwitz - Duty to speak
        
        Kaskitso v. North Am. - Silence generally not acceptance
        
        Den Norske v. Hydrocarbon - brokered deal
        
        Louisville Tin & Stove Co. v. Lay - sale of goods/not sent back
        
        Austin v. Burge - subscriptions/use
        
        Restatement § 69 - Acceptance by Silence or Exercise of Dominion
        
        39 U.S.C. § 3009-Mailing of Unordered Merchandise
      - U.C.C. § 2-207 (Battle of the Forms)
        
        Alliance Wall Corp. v. Ampat Midwest - Disagreement about "dickered for" terms
        
        Gardner Zemke Company v. Dunham Bush - discrepancies in offer/counteroffer
      - Web Contracts - Meyer v. Uber - reasonably conspicuous
  - - - Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 71
      - Sharington v. Strotton - Fresh Cause
      - nudum pactum (naked promise)-St. German Doctor and Student
      - Vian v. Carey - A bargained for exchange/motive
      - Borelli v. Brusseau - pre-existing duty/legal obligation
      - Hunt v. Bate - No past consideration
    - - Nicholas v. Raynbred - Contract law = enforcement of a promise, not an agreement
      - Essential Accounting Systems, Inc. v. Dewberry - Mutual promises constitute consideration, each for the other.
      - West v. Stowell - reciprocal promise
      - Illusory Promises
        
        Ridge Runner Forestry v. Veneman - illusory promises on both sides
        
        Forrester's Case - a promise by a minor is not illusory if he performs it
        
        Johnson Enterprises v. Jacksonville, Inc. - Illusory promise = no consideration
        
        Wood v. Lucy, Lady-Duff Gordon - clearly implied promise is not illusory
      - Made in Good Faith - U.C.C. § 1-201 & § 1-304
    - - Webb's Case - labor and time is a detriment
      - Settlement Cases
        
        Kim v. Son - Pe detriment must be giving up something Pe actually has a right to.
        
        Harvard v. Kemper - a claim is discharged if P accepts payment under an accord & satisfaction
        
        Kalis v. Colgate-Palmolive - good faith agreement to give up right to appeal is an adequate detriment, even after summary judgment
      - Doctor and Student, Keyme v. Goulston - Pe detriment = consideration even if Pr benefit is unclear
    - - Moral Obligation when Pr received a benefit
        
        Harrington v. Taylor - a voluntary humanitarian act is not consideration
        
        Edmonds Case - Reaffirmation of debt
        
        Webb v. McGowin - Promise to repay for being saved, and execution of the promise, can be consideration
        
        Ex parte: Iris Odem Minors can't contract but can be made to pay for necessaries
      - Reynolds v. Pinhowe - quicker payment of an existing debt/settlement out of court can be a benefit
      - Riches v. Bridges - benefit can be implied by the fact of the promise
      - Coggins - quicker payment is a benefit. Waived ability to enforce time frame by accepting payment
      - Game v. Harvie - benefit to promisor doesn't have to be large (peppercorn)