LEGL 2700 Roessing Test 3 – Questions With Fully
Explained Solutions
Save
Terms in this set (279)
a legally enforceable promise or an exchange of
contract
promises
-covers the sale of goods
-goods are tangible, movable items of personal
property
Uniform Commercial Code
-applies to individuals & firms
(UCC)
-uniform state law
-Article 2: applies to contracts
-Section 207: "Battle of Forms" -> Deal still goes through
-involve a promise for promise exchange ( mutual
bilateral contracts promises)
-acceptance is before action
-exist when a promise is made in exchange for
performance
unilateral contracts -ex. reward for lost pet
-acceptance has a time period before action is
performed
express contracts parties discuss the promised terms of their agreement
-arise from the conduct of the parties rather than from
the words
implied-in-fact contracts
-Ex. asking an accountant for advice -> implies a
promise to pay the going rate for this advice
, -Leyden got terminated from her job -> claimed that
termination was a breach of an implied contract
-enforcing implied-in-fact agreements is an important
means of ensuring that two parties' intent to make
Leyden v. American binding promises is honored
Accreditation Healthcare -implied-in-fact must contain the same elements as
Commission contracts -> acceptance and consideration
-employers can weaken the presumption of an at-will
employment relationship by making statements about
the employee rights and expectation in policies and
manuals
when one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of
another, the law may imply a duty on the first party to
implied-in-law contract
pay the second even though there is no contract
between the two parties
not true contracts, but a judicial remedy to prevent on
quasi-contract
part from receiving unjust enrichment
enforceable contract when courts uphold the validity of such promises
if a nonperforming party has a justifiable reason for
unenforceable contract
noncompliance with a promise
-when an agreement is enforceable because all the
valid contract essential requirements are present
-can be voided by both parties
-one that appears to be an agreement but lacks an
void contract essential requirement for validity and enforceability
-only minor can get out of contract
a situation in which both parties are equally at fault in an
in pari delicto
illegal contract
-an agreement when at least one party has the right to
withdraw from the promise made without incurring any
voidable contract
legal liability
-can't be voided by either parties
executed contract one in which the parties have performed their promises
when the parties have not yet performed their
executory contract
agreement
, -Offer to enter into a contract
-Acceptance of the offer
Elements of an Enforceable -Consideration for each promise
Contract -Capacity of each party to enter into a binding
agreement
-Legality of subject matter
Defenses to Contract -Improper form when a writing is required
Enforcement -no true meeting of the minds due to fraud or mistake
offer contains a specific promise and a specific amount
When the terms of an agreement are not definite and
indefiniteness
specific
when the offeror retracts the offer before the
revocation
acceptance
-when the offeree rejects the offer
rejection
-voids the offer
-when the offeree makes a counterproposal
-has the effect of rejecting the original offer and
counteroffer
sending back a new offer for a different contract
-can't change offer and get original offer
when the offeree fails to accept by a deadline defined
lapse of time
in the offer or after a reasonable period of time
when the object of the contract is destroyed or legally
subject matter destruction
eliminated
-when the offeror no longer has the capacity to make
offeror death or insanity the offer
-can revoke offer on your behalf
when a change in the law renders the agreement illegal,
subject matter illegality
acceptance is no longer possible
-is necessary to create a valid, enforceable contract
acceptance -"mirror image rule" -> common law
-counter-offer = rejection under common law
for an acceptance to create a binding contract,
Mirror Image Rule standard contract law requires that the acceptance
must match it exactly
, -Alps requested consequential damages from Gottlieb
related to the customers' complaints
-Gottlieb claimed that its finished goods form excluded
such liability
-Court found that Gottlieb's term was included in the
Gottlieb and Co v. Alps
contract even though it appeared only on Gottlieb's
South Corporation
forms and was not specifically discussed by the parties
-Alps' failure to read Gottlieb's forms was irrelevant ->
generally true as a contract law principle
-If Alps foresaw the likelihood of certain outcomes, it
should have addressed it with Gottlieb
mailbox rule (deposited the acceptance becomes binding when it is "deposited"
acceptance rule) with the postal service
-the legal mechanism for evaluating the existence of an
incentive
consideration
-both parties get & give something
-each side is doing something
each party has surrendered the right to have a court
accord and satisfaction determine exactly what amount is owed -> agreement
and payment of specified amount to resolve the dispute
-Vassilkovska sued Woodfield for misrepresenting the
price of the car in a financing agreement
-Contracts require consideration for both promises
Vassilkovska v. Woodfield -Care must be taken in limiting one's obligations -> if the
Nissan, Inc. result is no legal detriment at all
-The amount of consideration is generally not an issue,
but it must be more substantial than simply an
acknowledgement or statement
exists when a merchant offering goods promises in
firm offer writing that the offer will not be revoked for a period
not to exceed three months
-such agreement to not revoke an offer
option -has to be supported by consideration: common law
-"firm offer" -> UCC; can't back out
Explained Solutions
Save
Terms in this set (279)
a legally enforceable promise or an exchange of
contract
promises
-covers the sale of goods
-goods are tangible, movable items of personal
property
Uniform Commercial Code
-applies to individuals & firms
(UCC)
-uniform state law
-Article 2: applies to contracts
-Section 207: "Battle of Forms" -> Deal still goes through
-involve a promise for promise exchange ( mutual
bilateral contracts promises)
-acceptance is before action
-exist when a promise is made in exchange for
performance
unilateral contracts -ex. reward for lost pet
-acceptance has a time period before action is
performed
express contracts parties discuss the promised terms of their agreement
-arise from the conduct of the parties rather than from
the words
implied-in-fact contracts
-Ex. asking an accountant for advice -> implies a
promise to pay the going rate for this advice
, -Leyden got terminated from her job -> claimed that
termination was a breach of an implied contract
-enforcing implied-in-fact agreements is an important
means of ensuring that two parties' intent to make
Leyden v. American binding promises is honored
Accreditation Healthcare -implied-in-fact must contain the same elements as
Commission contracts -> acceptance and consideration
-employers can weaken the presumption of an at-will
employment relationship by making statements about
the employee rights and expectation in policies and
manuals
when one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of
another, the law may imply a duty on the first party to
implied-in-law contract
pay the second even though there is no contract
between the two parties
not true contracts, but a judicial remedy to prevent on
quasi-contract
part from receiving unjust enrichment
enforceable contract when courts uphold the validity of such promises
if a nonperforming party has a justifiable reason for
unenforceable contract
noncompliance with a promise
-when an agreement is enforceable because all the
valid contract essential requirements are present
-can be voided by both parties
-one that appears to be an agreement but lacks an
void contract essential requirement for validity and enforceability
-only minor can get out of contract
a situation in which both parties are equally at fault in an
in pari delicto
illegal contract
-an agreement when at least one party has the right to
withdraw from the promise made without incurring any
voidable contract
legal liability
-can't be voided by either parties
executed contract one in which the parties have performed their promises
when the parties have not yet performed their
executory contract
agreement
, -Offer to enter into a contract
-Acceptance of the offer
Elements of an Enforceable -Consideration for each promise
Contract -Capacity of each party to enter into a binding
agreement
-Legality of subject matter
Defenses to Contract -Improper form when a writing is required
Enforcement -no true meeting of the minds due to fraud or mistake
offer contains a specific promise and a specific amount
When the terms of an agreement are not definite and
indefiniteness
specific
when the offeror retracts the offer before the
revocation
acceptance
-when the offeree rejects the offer
rejection
-voids the offer
-when the offeree makes a counterproposal
-has the effect of rejecting the original offer and
counteroffer
sending back a new offer for a different contract
-can't change offer and get original offer
when the offeree fails to accept by a deadline defined
lapse of time
in the offer or after a reasonable period of time
when the object of the contract is destroyed or legally
subject matter destruction
eliminated
-when the offeror no longer has the capacity to make
offeror death or insanity the offer
-can revoke offer on your behalf
when a change in the law renders the agreement illegal,
subject matter illegality
acceptance is no longer possible
-is necessary to create a valid, enforceable contract
acceptance -"mirror image rule" -> common law
-counter-offer = rejection under common law
for an acceptance to create a binding contract,
Mirror Image Rule standard contract law requires that the acceptance
must match it exactly
, -Alps requested consequential damages from Gottlieb
related to the customers' complaints
-Gottlieb claimed that its finished goods form excluded
such liability
-Court found that Gottlieb's term was included in the
Gottlieb and Co v. Alps
contract even though it appeared only on Gottlieb's
South Corporation
forms and was not specifically discussed by the parties
-Alps' failure to read Gottlieb's forms was irrelevant ->
generally true as a contract law principle
-If Alps foresaw the likelihood of certain outcomes, it
should have addressed it with Gottlieb
mailbox rule (deposited the acceptance becomes binding when it is "deposited"
acceptance rule) with the postal service
-the legal mechanism for evaluating the existence of an
incentive
consideration
-both parties get & give something
-each side is doing something
each party has surrendered the right to have a court
accord and satisfaction determine exactly what amount is owed -> agreement
and payment of specified amount to resolve the dispute
-Vassilkovska sued Woodfield for misrepresenting the
price of the car in a financing agreement
-Contracts require consideration for both promises
Vassilkovska v. Woodfield -Care must be taken in limiting one's obligations -> if the
Nissan, Inc. result is no legal detriment at all
-The amount of consideration is generally not an issue,
but it must be more substantial than simply an
acknowledgement or statement
exists when a merchant offering goods promises in
firm offer writing that the offer will not be revoked for a period
not to exceed three months
-such agreement to not revoke an offer
option -has to be supported by consideration: common law
-"firm offer" -> UCC; can't back out
