CONTRACT LAW CASES EXAM 2025
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Langer v Superior Steel Corp.
Employee gets paid not to work at competitors - ....ANSWER ...-Topic:
Consideration
Holding: The decision of the trial court is reversed and remanded; Langer's
forbearance from seeking employment elsewhere was a legal detriment to himself,
and a benefit to his employer.
Rule:
The act of refraining from doing something which the party has a legal right to do
is itself a detriment to him, and is thus sufficient consideration for an enforceable
contract.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,A way of satisfying the legal detriment element of consideration is forbearance
Bailey v. West
Boarding Horse Case - ....ANSWER ...-Topic: Implied in Fact Contract
Holding: Bailey is not entitled to compensation from West for boarding the horse
because he boarded the horse voluntarily as an officious intermeddler (knowing the
ownership was disputed). The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded
for injury judgement of West.
There was no mutual agreement or intent to promise
Rule:
A contract is implied in fact if there is a
1. mutual agreement between the parties
2. and intent to promise (but the agreement and promise are implied from the
parties' conduct and other facts, rather than made in words)
·Bolin Farms v American Cotton Shippers
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,Cotton Prices Case - ....ANSWER ...-Topic: foreseeable change in
circumstances
Holding: The court held the contracts as lawful and valid (enforceable even after
the change in circumstances) because the consequence was a foreseeable risk at the
formation of the contract (a risk of forward-sales contract that both parties had the
experience to know)
Rule:
A change in circumstances following entrance into a contract does not make the
contract unenforceable
1. if it is a foreseeable consequence/risk that is known by both parties at the time
of the agreement
2. And the contract is not unconscionable (procedurally and substantively)
*This is an Output Contract: an agreement in which a producer agrees to sell his or
her entire production to the buyer, who in turn agrees to purchase the entire
output.*
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, Furniture lay-away agreement case - ....ANSWER ...-Topic:
Unconscionability
Holding: The lower courts did not conclude that holding the contract
unenforceable was a viable option, and thus made no findings of fact as to the
presence of unconscionability. The cases are thus remanded for consideration of
the contracts under this new test for unconscionability
Rule:
A contract is unconscionable when it contains one of each element
1. Procedural
Signing without reading
Reading but not understanding
Unequal sophistication of parties
2. Substantive
Clearly inefficient terms
Unequal division of surplus
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Langer v Superior Steel Corp.
Employee gets paid not to work at competitors - ....ANSWER ...-Topic:
Consideration
Holding: The decision of the trial court is reversed and remanded; Langer's
forbearance from seeking employment elsewhere was a legal detriment to himself,
and a benefit to his employer.
Rule:
The act of refraining from doing something which the party has a legal right to do
is itself a detriment to him, and is thus sufficient consideration for an enforceable
contract.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,A way of satisfying the legal detriment element of consideration is forbearance
Bailey v. West
Boarding Horse Case - ....ANSWER ...-Topic: Implied in Fact Contract
Holding: Bailey is not entitled to compensation from West for boarding the horse
because he boarded the horse voluntarily as an officious intermeddler (knowing the
ownership was disputed). The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded
for injury judgement of West.
There was no mutual agreement or intent to promise
Rule:
A contract is implied in fact if there is a
1. mutual agreement between the parties
2. and intent to promise (but the agreement and promise are implied from the
parties' conduct and other facts, rather than made in words)
·Bolin Farms v American Cotton Shippers
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,Cotton Prices Case - ....ANSWER ...-Topic: foreseeable change in
circumstances
Holding: The court held the contracts as lawful and valid (enforceable even after
the change in circumstances) because the consequence was a foreseeable risk at the
formation of the contract (a risk of forward-sales contract that both parties had the
experience to know)
Rule:
A change in circumstances following entrance into a contract does not make the
contract unenforceable
1. if it is a foreseeable consequence/risk that is known by both parties at the time
of the agreement
2. And the contract is not unconscionable (procedurally and substantively)
*This is an Output Contract: an agreement in which a producer agrees to sell his or
her entire production to the buyer, who in turn agrees to purchase the entire
output.*
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, Furniture lay-away agreement case - ....ANSWER ...-Topic:
Unconscionability
Holding: The lower courts did not conclude that holding the contract
unenforceable was a viable option, and thus made no findings of fact as to the
presence of unconscionability. The cases are thus remanded for consideration of
the contracts under this new test for unconscionability
Rule:
A contract is unconscionable when it contains one of each element
1. Procedural
Signing without reading
Reading but not understanding
Unequal sophistication of parties
2. Substantive
Clearly inefficient terms
Unequal division of surplus
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
