Class Notes

 

FALL SEMESTER

 

8/20/03Hawkins v. McGee, Contract Damages

 

8/21/03 – The antique desk, Acme Mills V. Johnson, estoppel, the economic efficiency of breaking promises

 

8/22/03 – The significance of Acme Mills, market price, Laurin v. DeCarlolis, UCC Article 2

 

 

8/27/03 – UCC Article 1, Clovis’s Problem #6, Louise v. Dix, the principle of substitution, Illinois Central R.R. v. Crail

 

8/28/03Watt 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

 

8/29/03 – A variation on Rockingham, the practice exam question, exam tips, questions on Billetter v. Posell, a problem

 

 

9/3/03Missouri Furnace Co. v. Cochran, buyers’ remedies, Reliance Cooperage Corp. v. Treat

 

9/4/03 – Some problems, the buyer in default, seller’s remedies

 

9/5/03Neri v. Retail Marine Corp., Hadley v. Baxendale, the rule of Hadley

 

 

9/10/03Victoria 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

 

9/11/03 – 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

 

9/12/03 – More on hypotheticals from Dempsey, reliance damages in Dempsey, Boone v. Coe, restitution v. enforcement

 

 

9/17/03 – Quantum meruit, express and implied contracts, United States v. Algernon Blair, Inc., Britton v. Turner

 

9/18/03 – Plaintiff in default seeking restitution, UCC § 2-718, Pinches v. Swedish Evangelical Church, Groves v. Wunder, Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.

 

9/19/03 – 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

 

 

9/24/03A 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

 

9/25/03 – Equitable remedies, the history of equity, Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises, UCC § 2-716, Curtice Bros. v. Catts

 

9/26/03 – 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

 

10/2/03 – 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

 

 

10/15/03 – 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

 

10/16/03Fischer v. Union Trust Co., gift transactions, Simmons v. United States, Batsakis v. Demotsis, two hypotheticals on claim settlements, Duncan v. Black

 

10/17/03 – 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

 

 

10/22/03Kirksey v. Kirksey, Restatement § 90, Ricketts v. Scothorn

 

10/23/03Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank, Restatement § 90, lessons of Allegheny College, Cardozo at work, East Providence Credit Union v. Geremia

 

10/24/03Siegel v. Spear Co., Seavey v. Drake, part performance, Goodman v. Dicker, Johnny and his uncle, Fried v. Fisher

 

 

10/29/03Levine 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

 

10/30/03 – 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

 

10/31/03Lima Locomotive & Mach. Co. v. National Steel Castings Co., UCC § 2-306, Feld v. Henry S. Levy & Sons, Inc., franchising

 

 

11/5/03 – Review, agreement formation, Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co., Kabil Developments Corp. v. Mignot, Raffles v. Wichelhaus, Restatement § 20

 

11/6/03Raffles v. Wichelhaus, Restatement § 201, New York Trust Co. v. Island Oil & Transport Corp., Restatement § 21, McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., “conspicuous”

 

11/7/03Kari v. General Motors Corp., Moulton v. Kershaw, Restatement §§ 24, 26, hypotheticals related to UCC § 2-305

 

 

11/12/03 – 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

 

11/13/03 – 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

 

11/14/03Jordan v. Dobbins, Davis v. Jacoby, Restatement § 45, Restatement § 87(2), Petterson v. Pattberg

 

 

11/19/03Brackenbury v. Hodgkin, Restatement § 45 again, hypotheticals on Dickinson v. Dodds, Restatement § 42, Restatement § 43, Thomason v. Bescher

 

11/20/03 – 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.

 

11/21/03Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., conduct concluding a bargain, rejection, Livingstone v. Evans, counter-offers

 

 

WINTER SEMESTER

 

1/7/04Livingstone v. Evans, the battle of the forms, UCC § 2-207, Idaho Power Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

 

 

1/12/04 – 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

 

1/14/04 – 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.

 

 

1/20/04 – Offer, rejection, and revocation by mail, acceptance is effective upon dispatch – the mailbox rule, Morrison v. Thoelke

 

1/21/04 – The problem from p. 444, silence as acceptance – § 69, Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co., Austin v. Burge

 

 

1/26/04Morone v. Morone, the parol evidence rule, Mitchill v. Lath

 

1/27/04Hatley v. Stafford, Restatement Second §§ 209, 213, 214 and 216, two kinds of integrations, Hayden v. Hoadley

 

1/28/04The handout problem – UCC § 2-202

 

 

2/2/04 – The elements of the tort of fraud, Lipsit v. Leonard, LaFazia v. Howe

 

2/3/04Hoffman v. Chapman, a hypothetical, the interpretation of writings, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.

 

2/4/04 – More on Henningsen, Richards v. Richards, Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc.

 

 

2/9/04Halbman v. Lemke, the doctrine of mental incompetence, Faber v. Sweet Style Mfg. Corp., Ortelere v. Teachers’ Retirement Bd., Farnum v. Silvano

 

2/10/04Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist., duress, Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corp., Smithwick v. Whitley, Wolf v. Marlton Corp.

 

2/11/04Alaska Packers’ Ass’n v. Domenico, Schwartzreich v. Bauman-Bauch, Inc., accord and satisfaction

 

 

2/16/04 – 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

 

2/17/04Jackson v. Seymour, Sherwood v. Walker

 

2/18/04 – More on Sherwood, Beachcomber Coins, Inc. v. Boskett, Elsinore Union Elementary School Dist. v. Kastorff

 

 

2/23/04 – The Smith v. Zimbalist handout problem, Tribe v. Peterson, excuse, Taylor v. Caldwell, Tompkins v. Dudley

 

2/24/04 – A problem – Tompkins v. Dudley, another problem – Carroll v. Bowersock, yet another problem, even another problem, a problem on the sale of land

 

2/25/04American 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

 

3/2/04Waters v. Min Ltd., Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., the maturing and breach of contract duties, conditions, Howard v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp.

 

3/3/04Gray 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 Lint, Ziehen 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.

 

3/10/04Tipton v. Feitner, divisibility, the quality of the promised performances – the perfect tender rule, Oshinsky v. Lorraine Mfg. Co.

 

 

3/15/04Prescott & 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.

 

3/16/04Plante v. Jacobs, Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, Reynolds v. Armstead, Hadden v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, K & G Contr. Co. v. Harris

 

THAT’S ALL FOLKS!

 

Back to Contracts