Contracts I Course Outline
Contracts Outline
I. Introduction
a. What is a K?: A promise of a set of promises for the breach of which the law provides a legal remedy. § 1.
b. Hawkins v. McGee – an expectation to the idea that most medical promises should be argued in malpractice suit
c. Bayliner v. Crow – promise was Insufficiently specific
i. General intro into what kind of promises are enforceable
II. Remedies (Prelim.)
a. 2 assumptions – Naval & Sullivan
i. Rather than punishing the breaching party, we look to heal the breach victim
1. Expectancy (benefit of the bargain) “in as good a position as he would have been had the contract been performed” Restatement § 344(a) and § 347
2. Reliance (P back at SQA) - “”being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance” “in as good a position as he would have been had the contract not been made” in the first place. § 344 (b) and § 349
3. Restitution (D back at SQA) – “restore to any him any benefit that he has conferred on the other party” – Restatement § 344(c) and § 371
III. Consideration as a Basis for Enforcement
a. Basic Definition
i. Benefit to promissor
ii. Detriment to promisee
iii. Bargained for exchange
1. Restatement § 71: To constitute consideration, a performance or return promise must be bargained for.
2. Restatement § 79: There only needs to be a bargained for exchange. No need for benefit or detriment, or equal values of exchange.
a. Holmes’ “reciprocal conventional inducement”
b. Requirement of Exchange
i. Consideration must come prior to a contractual agreement
1. Feinberg v. Pfeiffer, Mills v. Wyman, Webb v. McGowan
c. Requirement of Bargain
i. Kirksey v. Kirksey, Land Land Employment Group v. Columber
d. Promises as consideration
i. Unilateral and bilateral contracts
ii. Illusory promises
1. A promise or apparent promise is not consideration if by its terms the promisor or
I. Introduction
a. What is a K?: A promise of a set of promises for the breach of which the law provides a legal remedy. § 1.
b. Hawkins v. McGee – an expectation to the idea that most medical promises should be argued in malpractice suit
c. Bayliner v. Crow – promise was Insufficiently specific
i. General intro into what kind of promises are enforceable
II. Remedies (Prelim.)
a. 2 assumptions – Naval & Sullivan
i. Rather than punishing the breaching party, we look to heal the breach victim
1. Expectancy (benefit of the bargain) “in as good a position as he would have been had the contract been performed” Restatement § 344(a) and § 347
2. Reliance (P back at SQA) - “”being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance” “in as good a position as he would have been had the contract not been made” in the first place. § 344 (b) and § 349
3. Restitution (D back at SQA) – “restore to any him any benefit that he has conferred on the other party” – Restatement § 344(c) and § 371
III. Consideration as a Basis for Enforcement
a. Basic Definition
i. Benefit to promissor
ii. Detriment to promisee
iii. Bargained for exchange
1. Restatement § 71: To constitute consideration, a performance or return promise must be bargained for.
2. Restatement § 79: There only needs to be a bargained for exchange. No need for benefit or detriment, or equal values of exchange.
a. Holmes’ “reciprocal conventional inducement”
b. Requirement of Exchange
i. Consideration must come prior to a contractual agreement
1. Feinberg v. Pfeiffer, Mills v. Wyman, Webb v. McGowan
c. Requirement of Bargain
i. Kirksey v. Kirksey, Land Land Employment Group v. Columber
d. Promises as consideration
i. Unilateral and bilateral contracts
ii. Illusory promises
1. A promise or apparent promise is not consideration if by its terms the promisor or