Contracts
Class Notes
Alaska Packers’ Ass’n v. Domenico
The
Alaska Packers hire some dudes in
Here’s
our old friend, the preexisting legal duty rule from Levine v. Blumenthal. The Alaska Packers got nothing in exchange for the promise to pay the workers $50 more. The promise to pay more was not supported by consideration. It was based on having the workers perform
just those services that they were already contractually bound to do. Alaska Packers’s promise is unenforceable,
and so the workers don’t get their extra $50.
Do
we agree with this result? Is there
anything troublesome that the court says?
Was there consideration? Is there
an argument that there was consideration? Did the fishermen give up something in
exchange for the $50 bonus? The
fishermen contend that the nets were full of holes. Part of their pay was on a piecework basis:
two cents per catch. If they can’t catch
any fish, they’re getting less money.
They would argue that they were implicitly promised decent nets, but
they got crappy nets. They argue that
they’re not going to get as many two centses as they expected. Are they dropping this claim in return for
$50?
It
doesn’t make commercial sense for the Alaska Packers to go up to
The
appellate court says that they won’t review the trial court’s finding about the
nets because the witnesses aren’t before the appellate court. That’s fine, but what about consideration? If the evidence was sharply conflicting, it
would appear that the fishermen had a good faith claim that there was something
wrong with the nets. Also, the claim was
probably plausible (colorable). Otherwise, where could the sharply
conflicting evidence have come from?
Then you could argue that they have surrendered a claim that ended up
being invalid for the $50 extra. By
modern lights, the court might have been wrong about the existence of consideration.
The
editors say that we ought to uphold modifications in many situations. However, the doctrine of consideration and
the preexisting legal duty rule can cause a lot of problems. The doctrine is highly technical and often
gets in the way of good results.
However, that’s not to say that there’s nothing to it. When someone promises a benefit and gets
nothing in exchange for it, that ought to make you sensitive to whether
something rotten is going on. Sometimes
you’ll conclude that there isn’t and the modification ought to be upheld as a
matter of policy. But the consideration
doctrine, while it has its technicalities and shortcomings and won’t do justice
in every case, it is powerful in suggesting that this is a situation that calls
for close scrutiny.
How
should the fishermen have been advised? If
the fishermen had done anything that was bargained for that they didn’t have a preexisting
legal duty to do, they would have made out okay. The preexisting legal duty rule is an
academic doctrine, and if you think like a lawyer it’s easy to avoid it.
Recall
Restatement § 74 which deals with the surrender of an invalid claim as consideration. This ties in with Duncan v. Black. While the preexisting legal duty rule and consideration
is still law and could help to decide a number of cases, it also has lots of
limitations.
What
is a better way to do justice in this case? The court should have thought about it as a
duress case. This wouldn’t have gotten
the court into all these technicalities.
Was there an improper threat here?
Yes! The workers threatened to
break their promise to work. Would the
threat have caused actual harm?
Sure! They wouldn’t have been
able to get replacement workers. They
would have lost out and they wouldn’t have had a very good remedy against the
workers since there’s so many of them and they may not have much money.
Duress,
whether there is consideration or not, makes a better way to get at what’s
going on in this case. So the packers
can argue that they were coerced into making this “bonus” promise.
When
you have contract formation in
Compare
this to Austin Instrument. While Loral is looking for subcontractors, they
have bargaining power. If
Alaska
Packers has the chance to argue either no consideration or duress. Loral, on the
other hand, had to make it a duress case.
There are two factual differences that explain why that’s so:
1. This is a contract for the
sale of goods. Under § 2-209 (1), you
don’t need consideration to change a contract under the auspices of the
UCC. Does that do Loral in? Not necessarily. Modifications must be in good faith. You can’t use extortion to get a contract modification without a legitimate
commercial reason.
2. Loral had already performed
the promise for the bonus. Once performance
has been completed, there is no longer any consideration argument.
So
if Alaska Packers had already paid the extra $50 to the fishermen, they would
have no consideration argument, because consideration is a doctrine that only
applies to promises that haven’t yet been performed.
These
doctrines police modifications of existing contracts. Some of the modifications make sense and
ought to be upheld. Other don’t make
sense and shouldn’t be upheld.
Schwartzreich
v. Bauman-Bauch, Inc.
Schwartzreich
has promised to work for a particular period of time for $90 a week. Then he gets an offer to work for someone
else for either $110 or $115 a week. The
original employer says: “I want you to stay here. We’ll up your salary to $100 per week.” Is that an enforceable promise? There are two arguments that it is not:
1. The employer didn’t get
anything in exchange for the bonus.
2. The bonus was coerced
because the employer would have been left in the lurch without Schwartzreich.
What
does the court do? The court thinks
about the case in consideration terms and finds a way to say that there was consideration. How?
First,
when you have two parties to an agreement that is at least in part executory (not
fully performed) on both sides then they can both choose to back out and consideration
won’t cause any problem. The two sides
can mutually agree to rescind, then make a whole new deal. Both sides might say: “The deal looked good
to both of us when we made it, but now it looks crappy for both of us. Let’s both walk away from it.” That is allowed, and there is no problem of consideration
for the rescission agreement: each side gives up rights they had under the contract. Once that’s happened, there’s no preexisting
legal duty problem and they can make a new problem.
The
result may be okay, but
Accord and satisfaction
In
general, we’re talking about bargaining pressure exerted by a debtor on a
creditor. Debtors can cause their
creditors a lot of misery, and sometimes they do! They can do this by using checks.
Let’s
look at some hypotheticals. Say D
borrowed $40,000 from C and now owes $45,000 including interest. D sent a check for $30,000 to C. At the top of the back of the check, D wrote “by
indorsing and cashing this check, C agrees that D has paid him in full and
hereby releases D from all liability.” C
reads the inscription and cashes the check.
Then C sues D for $15,000. What’s
the result? Does D’s thing work?
Debtors
do this all the time. This is kind of a “torture”
of the creditor. You put money in the
creditor’s hands and tempt them with it.
“Here it is! Just take it! But of course, if you take it, you’ll never
see the rest of your claim.”
So
has C lost the rest of his claim?
No! The debt is not disputed. It’s a liquidated
debt. There is no argument about the
debt as to how much it is and the fact that it exists. You can’t enforce a promise to accept less
than full payment in satisfaction of a liquidated
debt. D owed $45,000 with no ifs,
ands, or buts. We won’t let D pay less
than that to satisfy his debts. The
creditor can take the money, apply it on account, and then turn around and
successfully sue for the remaining $15,000.
If
there’s no question that D is trying to get out of his debt on the cheap, we
won’t let him!
“Full
payment checks! It’s one of the greatest
things since canned beer!” By the
overwhelming weight of authority, they won’t work when you have a liquidated
debt, undisputed as to amount and liability.
The law will tell the creditor that “you can have your cake and eat it
too”.
UCC
§ 3-311 (a) gives some conditions under which accord and satisfaction can kick
in.
Say
D owed C $45,000 and it’s undisputed as to amount and liability. Say D tenders his used bulldozer in full satisfaction
of that $45,000 claim. C takes the
bulldozer. Then C sues D for $15,000,
proving by reliable evidence that the bulldozer was worth $30,000. Can C recover? No,
because D was under no obligation to pay C a bulldozer. This is a whole new deal! A bulldozer is offered in exchange for the
forgiveness of a $45,000 debt. The deal
was accepted! So that’s it. There was no preexisting legal duty in regard
to the bulldozer. The creditor is
hooked! The debt has been paid! C would only be able to argue that somehow he
had been defrauded. But that would be
tough to argue, and so this debt has probably been discharged.
The
preexisting legal duty rule and the doctrine of consideration have their good
points, but they also have their technicalities and may not do justice in all
situations.
Say
we have a loan of $45,000. D says that
the interest was calculated wrong and only owes $42,000. D tenders a check for $42,000 with a “full
payment” legend on it. C reads the
legend, indorses the check, and gets the money, then sues D for $3,000. Say C’s calculation of the interest was right
and D was wrong. Does C win? Let’s say the interest about dispute is in
good faith. If there is an unliquidated
debt, the debtor can make it go away with this kind of full-payment check. That’s a very valuable opportunity available
to debtors. You can make the debt go
away if you pay what you admit you owe and honestly dispute the rest.
Notice
that one of the big policies at work here is the fact that we favor
settlement. But what’s troublesome? The debtor is torturing the creditor, putting
pressure on the creditor to take the money now, or else maybe never get any
money ever. This is debtor pressure on
the creditor. Be aware of it because you’re
probably going to use it in practice.
Notice that it is considerable pressure, and in appropriate
circumstances, we’ll allow it to work.
But, when the claim is
unliquidated or the dispute is alleged in bad faith, we won’t let this kind of
pressure work.
Let’s
say D writes the $42,000 full payment check.
What if C scratches out the “full payment” legend and then writes “payment
on account” on the back of the check.
What’s the effect on C’s suit against D for $3,000?
On
Monday, we’ll talk about executory accords.