– Hawkins v. McGee, Contract Damages
– The antique desk, Acme
Mills V. Johnson, estoppel, the economic efficiency of breaking
– The significance of Acme Mills, market price, Laurin v. DeCarlolis, UCC Article 2
– UCC Article 1, Clovis’s Problem #6, Louise v. Dix,
the principle of substitution, Illinois Central R.R. v. Crail
– Watt v. Nevada Central R.R., price realizable versus
replacement cost, Rockingham
County v. Luten Bridge Co., avoidability, fixed costs versus variable
costs, two ways to calculate damages
– A variation on Rockingham,
the practice exam question, exam
tips, questions on Billetter v. Posell,
– Missouri Furnace Co. v. Cochran,
buyers’ remedies, Reliance
Cooperage Corp. v. Treat
– Some problems, the buyer in default, seller’s remedies
– Neri v. Retail Marine Corp., Hadley v. Baxendale, the rule of Hadley
– Victoria Laundry,
a bit of vocabulary, the Restatement on foreseeability, In The Heron II, Valentine v. General American
Credit, Inc., the “American” rule and the “English” rule
– A bit more on the “American” rule, Freund v. Washington Square Press,
Chicago Coliseum Club v. Dempsey,
Security Stove, Fera v. Village Plaza, certainty of damages
– More on hypotheticals from Dempsey,
reliance damages in Dempsey,
Boone v. Coe, restitution
– Quantum meruit, express and implied contracts, United States v. Algernon Blair, Inc.,
Britton v. Turner
– Plaintiff in default seeking restitution, UCC § 2-718, Pinches v. Swedish
Evangelical Church, Groves v.
Wunder, Peevyhouse v.
Garland Coal & Mining Co.
– More on Groves v. Wunder,
illustrations from the Restatement (First) § 346, liquidated damages and
penalties, City of Rye v.
Public Service Mut. Ins. Co., Muldoon
v. Lynch, vocabulary, Pacheco v.
Scoblionko, Wilt v. Waterfield
– A bit on the problem on p. 144, Massman
Constr. Co. v. City Council of Greenville, Miss., Wilt v. Waterfield, Fretwell v. Protection Alarm Co.,
Vines v. Orchard Hills, Inc., De Leon v. Aldrete
– Equitable remedies, the history of equity, Van Wagner Advertising Corp.
v. S & M Enterprises, UCC § 2-716, Curtice Bros. v. Catts
– Equitable relief in contracts for the sale of land, Fitzpatrick v. Michael, personal service
contracts and equitable remedies
10/1/03 – Personal service contracts and specific
performance, non-competition agreements, Lumley v. Wagner, the case of
Nap Lajoie, Pingley v. Brunson, Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Torborg, Data Management, Inc. v. Greene,
non-competition agreements in the sale of a business, Northern Delaware Indus. Dev.
Corp. v. E.W. Bliss Co., City
Stores Co. v. Ammerman
– Arbitration and equitable remedies, Grayson-Robinson Stores v. Iris
Constr. Corp., what promises ought to be enforced? Congregation Kadimah
Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo, reasons to enforce promises, consideration,
reliance and Restatement § 90, charitable subscriptions, formality, the seal
– What promises are we going to enforce?
Formality and the seal, Hamer v. Sidway,
the modern test for consideration – Restatement § 79, hypotheticals on Hamer, Whitten
v. Greeley-Shaw, Earle v. Angell
– Fischer v. Union Trust Co.,
gift transactions, Simmons v. United States,
Batsakis v. Demotsis, two
hypotheticals on claim settlements, Duncan v.
– Restatement Second § 74, the volunteer and quasi-contracts, Martin v. Little, Brown & Co., Collins
v. Lewis, a hypothetical on promises
grounded in the past, Mills v. Wyman, Webb v. McGowin
– Kirksey v. Kirksey, Restatement §
90, Ricketts v. Scothorn
College v. National Chautauqua County Bank, Restatement § 90, lessons
College, Cardozo at work, East Providence Credit Union v.
– Siegel v. Spear Co., Seavey v. Drake,
part performance, Goodman v. Dicker,
Johnny and his uncle, Fried v. Fisher
– Levine v. Blumenthal, the legal
duty rule, the Restatement on the preexisting legal duty rule, statutory modification
of the preexisting legal duty rule, unilateral versus bilateral contracts
– More on the handout problems, Restatement §§ 77(a) and 78, Obering v. Swain-Roach Lumber Co.,
problems on p. 293, Paul v. Rosen, Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, a
hypothetical for tomorrow
– Lima Locomotive & Mach. Co. v. National Steel Castings Co., UCC §
2-306, Feld v. Henry S. Levy &
Sons, Inc., franchising
– Review, agreement formation, Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick
Dry Goods Co., Kabil
Developments Corp. v. Mignot, Raffles
v. Wichelhaus, Restatement § 20
– Raffles v. Wichelhaus,
Restatement § 201, New
York Trust Co. v. Island Oil & Transport Corp., Restatement § 21, McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing,
– Kari v. General Motors Corp.,
Moulton v. Kershaw, Restatement §§ 24,
26, hypotheticals related to UCC § 2-305
– UCC §§ 2-204 and 2-305, Joseph
Martin, Jr. Delicatessen v. Schumacher, Restatement § 33, a
hypothetical, Empro Mfg. Co. v.
Ball-Co Mfg., Inc., Wheeler v. White
– Offers, Restatement § 41, Textron, Inc. v. Froelich, Cobaugh v. Klick-Lewis, Inc., Caldwell
v. Cline, Allied
Steel & Conveyors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Jordan v. Dobbins, Restatement § 48
– Jordan v. Dobbins, Davis v. Jacoby, Restatement § 45, Restatement
§ 87(2), Petterson v. Pattberg
– Brackenbury v. Hodgkin,
Restatement § 45 again, hypotheticals on Dickinson v. Dodds, Restatement
§ 42, Restatement § 43, Thomason v. Bescher
– Firm offers, UCC § 2-205, E.A. Coronis Associates v. M. Gordon Constr. Co.,
a hypothetical on James Baird and
Drennan, James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros., Drennan v. Star Paving Co.
– Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.,
conduct concluding a bargain, rejection, Livingstone
v. Evans, counter-offers
v. Evans, the battle of the forms, UCC § 2-207, Idaho Power Co. v.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
– More on the battle of the forms, the new Article 2, Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton, Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Constantine, Sharon v. City of Newton
– More on boilerplate contracts, Mundy v. Lumberman’s Mut. Cas. Co., Weisz
v. Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc., Karl Llewellyn on boilerplate form
agreements, ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc.
– Offer, rejection, and revocation by mail, acceptance is effective upon
dispatch – the mailbox rule, Morrison v. Thoelke
– The problem from p. 444, silence as acceptance – § 69, Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co.,
Austin v. Burge
– Morone v.
Morone, the parol evidence rule, Mitchill v. Lath
– Hatley v.
Stafford, Restatement Second §§ 209, 213, 214 and 216, two kinds of
integrations, Hayden v. Hoadley
– The handout problem – UCC § 2-202
– The elements of the tort of fraud, Lipsit v. Leonard, LaFazia v. Howe
v. Chapman, a hypothetical, the interpretation of writings, Pacific Gas
& Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
– More on Henningsen, Richards v.
Richards, Broemmer v. Abortion
Services of Phoenix, Brower v.
Gateway 2000, Inc.
– Halbman v.
Lemke, the doctrine of mental incompetence, Faber v. Sweet Style Mfg. Corp., Ortelere v. Teachers’ Retirement Bd., Farnum v. Silvano
– Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist.,
duress, Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corp.,
Smithwick v. Whitley, Wolf v. Marlton Corp.
Packers’ Ass’n v. Domenico, Schwartzreich v.
Bauman-Bauch, Inc., accord and satisfaction
– More on accord and satisfaction, executory accords, Denney v. Reppert, Board of Comm’rs of Montgomery County v. Johnson, In re Estate of Lord v. Lord
– Jackson v. Seymour, Sherwood v. Walker
– More on Sherwood,
Beachcomber Coins, Inc. v. Boskett, Elsinore Union Elementary
School Dist. v. Kastorff
– The Smith v. Zimbalist handout
problem, Tribe v.
excuse, Taylor v. Caldwell, Tompkins v. Dudley
– A problem – Tompkins v. Dudley,
another problem – Carroll v. Bowersock,
yet another problem, even another problem, a problem on the sale of land
– American Trading &
Prod. Corp. v. Shell Int’l Marine, Ltd., Mishara
Contr. Co. v. Transit-Mixed Concrete Corp., Maple Farms, Inc. v. City School Dist., the “yellow-cake” cases, Krell v. Henry
3/1/04 – More on frustration of purpose, Lloyd v. Murphy,
unconscionability, Woollums v.
Horsley, Williams v.
Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., UCC § 2-302 on unconscionability
3/2/04 – Waters v. Min Ltd., Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc.,
the maturing and breach of contract duties, conditions, Howard v. Federal Crop Ins.
3/3/04 – Gray v. Gardner, the order of performance, Nichols v.
Raynbred, Kingston v. Preston, a hypothetical on Nichols
3/8/04 – Some problems on order of performance, Price v. Van
v. Smith, Cohen v. Krantz
3/9/04 – More on Cohen v. Krantz, Beecher v. Conradt, Stewart
v. Newbury, Kelly Contr. Co. v.
Hackensack Brick Co.
3/10/04 – Tipton v. Feitner, divisibility, the quality
of the promised performances – the perfect tender rule, Oshinsky v. Lorraine Mfg. Co.
3/15/04 – Prescott &
Co. v. J.B. Powles & Co., Beck &
Pauli Lithographing Co. v. Colorado Milling & Elevator Co., Bartus v. Riccardi – “cure”, Oddo v. General Motors
Corp., Worldwide RV Sales & Service v. Brooks, Fortin v. Ox-Bow Marina, Inc.
3/16/04 – Plante v. Jacobs, Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, Reynolds
v. Armstead, Hadden v. Consolidated
Edison Co. of New York, K & G Contr. Co. v. Harris