George Varney v. Issac Ditmars case brief

Varney v. Ditmars case brief summary
217 N.Y. 223

SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff former employee appealed from a judgment from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (New York), which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant former employer entered upon a dismissal of the employee's complaint for alleged wrongful discharge.

OVERVIEW:
-An employer offered to provide increased compensation to an employee by granting him a share of the employer's profits on a fixed date in the future.
-Prior to that date, the employer terminated the employee's employment, and the employee filed an action for wrongful discharge and sought recovery of a share in the profits.
-The dismissal of the employee's complaint was affirmed, and the employee appealed.
-The court affirmed the judgment.

HOLDING:
The court found that the employer did not indicate a specific share to which the employee would be entitled.

ANALYSIS:
-The court held that the contract, so far as it related to a share of the employer's profits, was not only uncertain but it was necessarily affected by so many other facts that were in themselves indefinite and uncertain that the intention of the parties was pure conjecture.
-The court held that the employee was entitled to recover only the difference between the amount he was paid and the actual value of his work, if the value was above the amount paid, for work actually performed.

OUTCOME: The judgment affirming the dismissal of the employee's wrongful discharge complaint was affirmed.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Services, Inc. case brief

Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Services, Inc. case brief summary
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8450

SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff website operator filed suit against defendant website operator, seeking a declaratory judgment that its website did not infringe any copyrightable material or trademarks, that it did not breach any contract with defendant, and that it did not engage in any tortious conduct. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3).

OVERVIEW:
-Both parties operated websites that allowed users to search for products on sale at local retailers. Each of defendant's web pages displayed a notice that, by using the site, a user agreed to abide by the "Terms of Use" for the site.
-The Terms of Use contained a forum selection clause.
-After plaintiff filed suit, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, contending that plaintiff was bound by the forum selection clause.

HOLDING:
The court held that the forum selection clause was enforceable as to plaintiff because: (1) plaintiff's visits to defendant's websites with knowledge of the Terms of Use constituted acceptance of the terms; and (2) plaintiff's repeated and automated use of defendant's websites formed the basis for imputing knowledge to plaintiff of the terms on which defendant's services were offered.

ANALYSIS:
-The court further held that the forum selection clause applied to plaintiff's federal and state copyright and trademark claims because those claims were based on the same events as the other claims set forth in plaintiff's complaint and related to the central conflict over whether defendant's terms were binding on plaintiff in the first instance.

RULES:
-When a benefit is offered subject to stated conditions and the offeree makes a decision to take the benefit with knowledge of the terms of the offer, the taking constitutes acceptance of the terms, which accordingly become binding on the offeree.

OUTCOME: The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. ATTBMH and Company, Inc. case brief

Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. ATTBMH and Company, Inc. case brief summary
240 F.3d 781

SYNOPSIS:
Defendant initiated arbitration proceedings due to plaintiff's refusal to pay for goods. Plaintiff filed an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California to enjoin the arbitration. The district court preliminarily enjoined both the pending arbitration and defendant from any further action regarding arbitration of the dispute in question. Defendant appealed the district court's order.

FACTS:
-The Plaintiff and Defendant dealt with one another for ten months and conducting approximately 38 transactions with one another.
-Plaintiff received some yarn from Defendant that it contended was defective.
-Defendant, in accordance with the contract terms of its invoices submitted the matter to arbitration in Atlanta, Georgia.
-Plaintiff filed suit to enjoin the arbitration, claiming it did not agree to arbitration in their original contractual arrangement and that arbitration was prejudicial to the Plaintiff.
-The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff accepted its agreement because their contract provided that Plaintiff “accepted these terms in full.”

HOLDING: The instant court found that the district court correctly concluded that venue was proper in the district court under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1391.

ANALYSIS:
-Contrary to defendant's arguments, nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.S. § 1 et seq., required that plaintiff's action to enjoin arbitration be brought in the district where the contract designated the arbitration to occur.
-The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.
-The district court found that plaintiff would have suffered irreparable harm if the arbitration were not stayed, that the balance of hardships tipped in plaintiff's favor and that it was in the public interest to stay arbitration.
-Serious questions were raised and plaintiff had shown a probability of success on the merits.
-The supplemental terms to the contract proposed by defendant, including the arbitration clause, did not become part of the contract.
-Finally, plaintiff did not waive its objection to arbitration by failing to object within the time period specified in the arbitration rules.

OUTCOME: The order was affirmed; the action was properly venued in the district court, it was not an abuse of discretion to grant the preliminary injunction, and plaintiff never entered into an arbitration agreement.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Columbus Rolling– Mill Co. case brief

Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Columbus Rolling– Mill Co. case brief summary
7 S. Ct. 168

SYNOPSIS:
Defendant railway company filed a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, which affirmed a judgment rendered against the railway in plaintiff State of Illinois' suit charging that the railway had, in violation of a state statute, been guilty of an unjust discrimination in its rates or charges of toll and compensation for the transportation of freight.

OVERVIEW: The State of Illinois alleged that the railroad company charged a shipper a rate of 15 cents per 100 pounds for a car-load, while charging another shipper at a rate of 25 cents per 100 pounds. The freight was in the same class in both instances, and carried over the same road, except as to the difference in the distance. The statute that was supposed to be violated by the transaction was Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 114, § 126.

HOLDING:
The Court concluded that the type of regulation was one that had to be, if established at all, of a general and national character, and could not be safely and wisely remitted to local rules and local regulations.
-The statute was a regulation of commerce, and of a national scope.

ANALYSIS:
-Accordingly, the regulation could only appropriately exist if it had been enacted by the Congress of the United States under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
-Because it was not, it was void and unenforceable.

OUTCOME: The Court reversed the judgment and the case was remanded to the Supreme Court of Illinois for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

William Drennan v. Star Paving Co. case brief

Drennan v. Star Paving Co. case brief summary

51 Cal.2d 409

SYNOPSIS:
Defendant subcontractor appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Kern County (California), which was rendered in favor of plaintiff contractor in an action to recover damages caused by defendant's refusal to perform paving work according to a bid defendant submitted to plaintiff.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff was a licensed general contractor preparing a bid for a school district. Defendant subcontractor was the lowest bidder for the paving work. Plaintiff used defendant's bid in computing his own bid for a school project. The day after receiving defendant's bid, plaintiff stopped by defendant 's office, whereupon plaintiff was informed that defendant's bid was a mistake. Defendant refused to do the paving work at the price originally given plaintiff. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages caused by defendant's refusal to perform the work according to its bid.

HOLDING:
On appeal, the court affirmed the award of damages to plaintiff, since the loss resulting from any mistake fell upon the party who caused it.

RULES:
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff had no reason to believe that defendant's bid was in error and plaintiff was entitled to rely upon it.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Brothers, Inc. case brief

James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Brothers, Inc. case brief summary
64 F.2d 344

SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff contractor appealed a judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, which directed a verdict for defendant merchant after plaintiff sued for breach of contract.

OVERVIEW:
-Defendant merchant sent contractors who were likely to bid on a construction job an offer to supply material needed for the job at set prices.
-Defendant did not realize that he was mistaken about the total quantity of the material needed for the job.
-Plaintiff contractor received defendant's offer and bid on the construction job that same day, basing its bid on the prices quoted by defendant.
-Later that same day, defendant telegraphed a withdrawal of the offer to contractors, having learned of his mistake.
-Plaintiff formally accepted defendant's offer several days after receiving the telegraph and the written confirmation of withdrawal.
-Defendant refused to recognize a contract, and plaintiff sued for breach of contract.
-The trial court directed a verdict for defendant.

HOLDING:
The court affirmed, holding that because the offer was withdrawn before it was accepted, the acceptance was too late.

RULES:
-An offer for an exchange is not meant to become a promise until a consideration has been received, either a counter-promise or whatever else is stipulated.
-To extend it would be to hold the offeror regardless of the stipulated condition of his offer.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that defendant had withdrawn his offer before it was accepted by plaintiff.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

A.A. Marchiondo v. Frank Scheck case brief

A.A. Marchiondo v. Frank Scheck case brief summary
432 P.2d 405 (1967)

SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff appealed a judgment of the District Court of Bernalillo County (New Mexico) for defendant in a breach of contract action arising from a sales commission included in defendant's unilateral offer to sell real estate.

OVERVIEW: Defendant unilaterally offered, in writing, to sell real estate to a specified prospective buyer and agreed to pay a percentage of the sales price to plaintiff broker as a commission. The offer fixed a six-day time limit for acceptance. Defendant, in writing, then revoked the offer. The revocation was received by plaintiff on the morning of the sixth day. Later that day, plaintiff obtained the offeree's acceptance. Plaintiff, claiming breach of contract, sued defendant for the commission stated in the offer. On the facts, the trial court dismissed the complaint.

HOLDING:
The court remanded for a finding on plaintiff's partial performance because, if plaintiff had partially performed prior to receipt of defendant's revocation, a contract with condition resulted, requiring payment of plaintiff's commission.

RULES:
-Once partial performance is begun pursuant to the offer made, a contract results.
-This contract has been termed a contract with conditions or an option contract.

OUTCOME: Decision reversed and remanded because a contract with a condition may have existed between the parties if plaintiff partially performed prior to defendant's revocation.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Fisher v. Jackson case brief

Fisher v. Jackson case brief summary

FACTS:
-Fisher was hired as a reporter by the defendant’s managing editor at a newspaper and was let go 5 years later.
-He got the job by responding to an advertisement by the newspaper looking for a
newsman – to which the plaintiff responded – he was interviewed and he took the
job.
-This case is an employee's action against employer for breach of employment contract.
-The plaintiff (Fisher) alleged that the he was induced (by Jackson, the defendant) to give up his job and take a new job and in return he would have lifetime employment – not subject to termination. Fisher contends that he entered into the oral employment contract with Jackson and that he suffered a detriment by giving up his job.

ISSUE:
Whether sufficient consideration was given on the part of the plaintiff that would make the employment contract binding?

HOLDING: It did not appear that employer had encouraged or induced employee to leave previous employment, employee's action in leaving previous employment was not sufficient consideration for an alleged contract of life employment.

ANALYSIS:
The negotiations for the job amounted to nothing more than the hiring of a job that was permanent in the sense that it wasn't merely temporary.
-The hiring was indefinite as to time and terminable by either party at his will.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Westside Investment Corp. case brief

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Westside Investment Corp. case brief summary
428 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. 1968)

SYNOPSIS:
Petitioner appealed the judgment of the Bexar County Civil Court, Fourth District (Texas), which dismissed his claim for specific performance of an option contract for the purchase of real estate.

OVERVIEW: Petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent to purchase real estate through an option contract. A written option contract was executed between the parties and earnest money exchanged. Subsequently, a letter of amendment to the contract of sale, subject to the option contract, was sent to petitioner requesting his signature; petitioner did not reply but deposited the remainder of the earnest money into escrow pursuant to the terms of the option contract. Respondent contended that petitioner rejected the option contract by respondent's subsequent letter of amendment.

HOLDING:
-The Petitioner successfully argued that the option contract was an independent agreement that required him to do no more than he did.

ANALYSIS:
-Additionally, he was not foreclosed from negotiations relative to the contract of sale, as distinguished from the option.
-As such, petitioner did not surrender or reject the option and it was a binding obligation between the parties.

RULES:
-Where an original offer is an irrevocable offer, creating in the offeree a binding option, the rule that a counter offer terminates the power of acceptance does not apply.
-Even if it is reasonable to hold that it terminates a revocable power, it should not be held to terminate rights and powers created by a contract.
-A binding option is such a contract and an offer in writing, that allows a time for acceptance either definite or reasonable and that is irrevocable by virtue of a statute, is itself a unilateral contract.
-A counter offer by such an offeree, or other negotiation not resulting in a contract, does not terminate the power of acceptance

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that petitioner was entitled to specific performance of the option contract, because the option contract was an independent agreement between the parties and did not terminate negotiations regarding the contract of sale.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Schnell v. Nell case brief

Schnell v. Nell case brief summary

FACTS:
Schnell’s wife died in her will it was said that Mr. Schnell would pay $200 each to
3 different parties.

ISSUE:
-Whether the consideration was sufficient to legally obligate Schnell to pay 3
people?

HOLDING:
The court identified 3 different considerations:
(1) A promise on the part of the Plaintiff to pay one-cent: The court said it is unconscionable contract
– so it is void.
(2) Moral Consideration -- The fact the Schnell loved his wife did not constitute consideration. This was his legal obligation – just moral obligation
(3) There was past consideration -- it was to just be a gift.

Rationale doesn’t support the rule.
-Mr. Schnell wasn’t just trying to get the penny – what was being bargained for wasn’t the penny.
-You need a bargained-for exchange.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

McKinnon v. Benedict case brief

McKinnon v. Benedict case brief summary

FACTS: Appeal for damages for a trespass on the property owned by the McKinnon’s, and from an injunction, which restrained the ∆s (Benedict’s) from resort property in Vilas County.
-The Benedicts had property —80 acres on the lake and operated a resort known as Bent’s Camp, which was surrounded by the McKinnon Tract (1170 acres).
-Benedicts purchases their property from the Dorsey’s with the assistance in the form of a $5000 loan
from the McKinnon’s.
-The loan agreement was contingent on the Benedict’s continuing to operate Bent’s Camp – as an American Family Resort.

ISSUE:
Was the contract given adequate consideration to be enforceable?

HOLDING:
The Court can take into account all facts when determining how to balance the equities.

ANALYSIS:
Courts historically balance the equity of the parties.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Harris v. Time, Inc. case brief

Harris v. Time, Inc. case brief summary

FACTS:
A little boy gets letter on the mail – through the clear box – it offers a free calculator
watch by opening the envelope.
-A Mother and her 3 year old son opens envelope – and it says you
can only get the watch by subscribing to Fortune Magazine.
-They sue Time for breach of contract.

ISSUE: Whether the promise to give a calculator watch given adequate consideration to
support the promise.

HOLDING: That technically, consideration was given however, the court enforces the de minimus
doctrine.

ANALYSIS:
“de minimis non curat lex” è “the law disregards trifles.”
The legal right was violated – that there was technically a contract, but that there wasn’t enough of a detriment.

RULE:
It is basic modern contract law that any bargained-for act or forbearance will
constitute adequate consideration for a unilateral contract.

Notes:
Courts confuse adequate and sufficient. They confuse with failure of
performance – breach of contract.
-We should only have sufficient and adequate because the only real relevant legal terms are that of (1) failure of performance and (2) breach of contract

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Passante v. McWilliam case brief

Passante v. McWilliam case brief summary

FACTS:
-The former counsel sued corporation and its directors, seeking to enforce oral promise
to provide him with three percent of corporation's stock.
-There was no consideration for alleged oral promise to provide stock, in return for counsel
procuring financing, as loan had already been arranged before offer of stock was made and
past services did not constitute valid consideration.

ISSUE:
Was there consideration present to support ownership in company?

HOLDING:
No.

RULE: Consideration must also be given in exchange for the promise. Past consideration cannot
support a contract.


---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Beneficial National Bank, U.S.A v. Obie Payton case brief

Beneficial National Bank, U.S.A v. Obie Payton case brief summary

214 F.Supp.2d 679

SYNOPSIS:
In plaintiff credit card companies' action to compel arbitration of its dispute with defendant credit card holder under § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.S. § 4, the credit card holder moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

OVERVIEW: The credit card holder sued the credit card companies in state court alleging that his purchase of a home satellite system, financed through a credit card account, was induced by fraud. The companies filed suit in federal court to compel arbitration of the dispute pursuant to an arbitration agreement that was part of the cardholder agreement.

HOLDING:
The court denied the holder's motion to dismiss, even though he had moved in his state court action to limit his damages to less than $ 75,000, the requisite amount for diversity jurisdiction, because the court had diversity jurisdiction at the time the instant action was filed.

ANALYSIS:
-The court ordered that the dispute be submitted to arbitration.
-The cardholder agreement permitted the credit card company to change the agreement's terms, which it did by adding the arbitration clause.
-The holder failed to reject the clause.
-Even though the clause contained no retroactive language, it was sufficiently broad to cover the parties' dispute, as it recited that it applied to "any claim, dispute, or controversy arising from or relating to this agreement or the relationships which result from this agreement."

RULES:
-If an arbitration clause contains retroactive time-specific language, e.g., a phrase reading "this agreement applies to all transactions occurring before or after this agreement," then the court may apply the arbitration provision to events relating to past events.
-Or, if the arbitration clause contains language stating that it applies to "all transactions between us" or "all business with us," then the court may apply the arbitration clause retroactively.

OUTCOME: The credit card holder's motion to dismiss the credit card companies' action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied. The court ordered that the parties' dispute be submitted to arbitration under the FAA, and ordered that the litigation be stayed pending arbitration.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Payton v. New York case brief

Payton v. New York case brief summary
445 U.S. 573

SYNOPSIS:
Defendants sought review of an order from the Court of Appeals of New York, which held that N.Y. Penal Law §§ 140.15(4), 120.80, authorized police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony arrest. Defendants contended that the statutes violated the constitutional prohibition against illegal searches and seizures.

OVERVIEW: Two cases on appeal challenged the constitutionality of N.Y. Penal Law §§ 140.15(4), 120.80. In the first case, police officers established probable cause against defendant in a murder case, and went to defendant's apartment to arrest him. Police officers entered without a warrant and found incriminating evidence in plain view that was admitted at defendant's trial. In the second case, police officers entered defendant's house to arrest him without a search warrant and found narcotics in the dresser.

HOLDING:
On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cases for further proceedings because the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest.

ANALYSIS:
The Court held that to be arrested in the home involved not only the invasion attendant to all arrests, but also an invasion of the sanctity of the home, which was too substantial, absent exigent circumstances, even when it was accomplished under statutory authority and when probable cause was present.

OUTCOME: The Court reversed and remanded the cases for further proceedings because the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited the police from making warrantless and nonconsensual entry into suspects' homes in order to make routine felony arrests.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

R.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co. case brief

R.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co. case brief summary
176 Miss. 645

SYNOPSIS:
Appellant claimant filed suit against appellee corporation to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the corporation's breach of contract. At the conclusion of the evidence, upon the corporation's motion, the Circuit Court of Bolivar County (Mississippi), excluded the claimant's testimony and directed a verdict and judgment in the corporation's favor. The claimant appealed.

OVERVIEW:
-The claimant was engaged in the wholesale grocery business.
-The corporation was engaged in the business of meat packing, part of which was the manufacture and sale of shortening.
-The corporation's salesman booked the claimant for an order of shortening at a set price.
-The booking was not a contract nor an absolute offer to contract.
-Thereafter, the claimant, through the corporation's salesman, placed an order for shortening.
-The corporation waited 12 days from the time the order was given before declining to accept them.
-The claimant filed a breach of contract action against the corporation.
-The trial court directed a verdict and judgment in the corporation's favor.

HOLDING:
-On appeal, the court reversed and remanded the case.
-The court found that all of the claimant's previous orders had been accepted and the goods shipped not later than a week from the giving of such orders.

ANALYSIS:
According to the court, it was a question for the jury whether or not the corporation's delay of 12 days before rejecting the orders, in view of the past history of such transactions between the parties, including the booking, constituted an implied acceptance.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment entered in the corporation's favor in the claimant's action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the corporation's breach of contract. The case was remanded.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Theodore Russell v. Texas Co. case brief

Theodore Russell v. Texas Co. case brief summary
238 F.2d 636

SYNOPSIS:
Appellant landowner sought review of the judgment of a United States District Court upholding the validity of a mineral reservation and oil lease held by appellee railroad on his land, as well as the district court's valuation of his surface rights in the land. Appellee corporation challenged the district court's judgment awarding appellant damages due under the terms of a revocable license.

OVERVIEW:
- Appellant landowner's property was subject to a reservation of mineral rights in favor of appellee railroad.
-Pursuant to an oil and gas lease granted by appellee railroad, appellee corporation conducted extensive operations on appellant's land.
-Appellant filed a lawsuit seeking damages from appellee corporation and to void appellee railroad's mineral right reservation and the subsequent oil and gas lease to appellee corporation.
-The district court upheld appellee railroad's mineral rights reservation but ruled against appellee corporation with respect to damages for use of the land under a revocable license.

HOLDING:
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that appellant was estopped from asserting that the mineral rights passed to him in the deed because he claimed no independent source of title to the mineral rights.

ANALYSIS:
The court also held that the district court's valuation of appellant's surface rights was proper because compensation for use and occupancy of land was measured by the value that the owner could have obtained from what he was able to offer on the market, and appellant had to right to offer the land on the market for mineral exploitation.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to damages and the validity of appellee railroad's mineral reservation and oil lease. The court held that because appellant landowner claimed no independent source to title to the mineral interests, he was estopped from denying its validity and that appellee corporation's continued use of the land was an acceptance of appellant's offer of a license.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Mary Glover v. Jewish War Veterans of United States case brief

Mary Glover v. Jewish War Veterans of United States case brief summary
68 A.2d 233 (D.C. 1949)

SYNOPSIS:
Claimant appealed an order of the District Court for the District of Columbia, which denied her recovery of an award for information leading to the arrest and conviction of a perpetrator of a murder.

OVERVIEW: Claimant sought to recover an award offered for information pertaining to a homicide. An award had been made for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators of a murder. The organization making the offer was private and placed the award notice in the newspapers. The boyfriend of claimant's daughter was one of the perpetrators. Upon questioning by the police, claimant provided information that led to his arrest and conviction for the murder. Claimant did not know of the reward until the day after she had given the police the information.

HOLDING:
On appeal, the court upheld the trial court's judgment denying claimant recovery. Since claimant had given the information without knowledge of the award, she did not actually assent to the offer.

ANALYSIS:
Moreover, the claimant did not volunteer the information, but rather submitted it only upon questioning by the police.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the denial of recovery to claimant since she did not assent to the award offer when she gave the information leading to the arrest and she did not submit that information voluntarily, but upon police questioning.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Industrial America, Inc. v. Fulton Industries, Inc. case brief

Industrial America, Inc. v. Fulton Industries, Inc. case brief summary
285 A.2d 412 

SYNOPSIS:Cross-appeals were brought from an order of Superior Court (Delaware) in an action for a broker's commission.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff acted as broker in the purchase of defendant manufacturing company by defendant holding company, following an advertisement by defendant holding company in which it offered to guarantee payment of brokers' fees. Plaintiff filed suit to recover his fee.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The trial judge submitted an interrogatory to the jury on the question of whether plaintiff intended to rely on the advertisement when plaintiff approached defendant holding company. The jury answered in the negative, and judgment was entered only against defendant manufacturing company.

HOLDING:
The supreme court held that plaintiff was also entitled to judgment against defendant holding company because the trial court erred in submitting the issue of subjective reliance to the jury.

RULES:
-Overt manifestation of assent, not subjective intent, controls the formation of a contract.
-The only intent of the parties to a contract which is essential is an intent to say the words or do the acts which constitute their manifestation of assent.
-The intention to accept is unimportant except as manifested

OUTCOME: The supreme court held that plaintiff was also entitled to judgment against defendant holding company because the trial court erred in submitting the issue of subjective reliance to the jury.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Steve Hendricks v. Eugene Behee case brief

Hendricks v. Behee case brief summary

FACTS:
-Plaintiff was the escrowee of $5,000 paid by defendant Behee as a deposit accompanying Behee's offer to purchase real estate owned by defendants.
-A dispute between Behee and the Smiths as to whether their dealings resulted in a binding contract prompted this action.
-After Behee, as prospective buyer, and the Smiths, as prospective sellers, had engaged in unproductive negotiations, Behee, on March 2, 1987, made a written offer of $42,500 for the real estate and $250 for a dinner bell and flower pots.
-On March 3 the offer was mailed to the Smiths, who lived in Mississippi, by their real estate agent.
-On March 4 the Smiths signed the proposed agreement in Mississippi.
-Before Behee was notified that the Smiths had accepted the offer, Behee withdrew the offer by notifying the real estate agent of the withdrawal
-Prior to this communication, Behee had received no notice that his offer had been accepted by the Smiths."

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
-The trial court awarded plaintiff $997.50 to be paid out of the $5,000 deposit.
-The trial court awarded the balance of $4,002.50 to defendant Behee.
-Defendants Smith appeal.

ARGUMENTS:
-Smiths contend that the dealings between them and Behee ripened into a contract and entitled the Smith's to the balance of $4,002.50, and that the trial court erred in ruling otherwise.

HOLDING:
The judgement was affirmed.

RULES:
-There is no contract until acceptance of an offer is communicated to the offeror.
-An offeror may withdraw his offer at any time "before acceptance and communication of that fact to him

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

La Salle National Bank v. Mel Vega case brief

La Salle National Bank v. Mel Vega case brief summary
520 N.E.2d 1129

SYNOPSIS:Plaintiff challenged an order of the Circuit Court of Du Page County (Illinois), which granted defendants summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff brought suit against defendants alleging breach of contract. The basis of plaintiff's claim was a real estate sale contract. The purchasing agent for the purchaser signed the contract, but plaintiff did not. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims, finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether a contract was formed between plaintiff and defendants.

HOLDING:
On appeal, the court found that no contract was formed between plaintiff and defendants.

ANALYSIS:
-Since the contract required that plaintiff execute the agreement for acceptance, plaintiff's failure to execute negated the formation of an enforceable contract.
-While there was an offer, there was no acceptance according to the terms of the contract.
-Plaintiff admitted in its pleadings that the contract submitted was a true and correct copy of the contract.

RULES:
-An offeror has complete control over an offer and may condition acceptance to the terms of the offer.
-The language of an offer may moreover govern the mode of acceptance required, and, where an offer requires a written acceptance, no other mode may be used.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order granting defendants summary judgment; since plaintiff did not execute the contract as specified by its terms, there was no acceptance to constitute the formation of an enforceable contract.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

L.R. Bretz v. Portland General Electric Co. case brief

L.R. Bretz v. Portland General Electric Co. case brief summary
882 F.2d 411

SYNOPSIS:
Appellant buyer challenged an order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, which granted summary judgment for appellee seller in appellant's action claiming breach of contract in the sale of stock.

OVERVIEW: In a diversity action, appellant buyer brought an action against appellee seller, claiming breach of contract in the sale of stock. The district court granted summary judgment for appellee.

FACTS:
-Plaintiff contacted the Defendant, expressing interest in buying stocks of Defendant’s subsidiary, Bear Tooth Coal Company.
-The Plaintiff wrote Defendant a letter with the offer, terms and conditions, and an elaborate acceptance procedure for the Defendant.
-The Defendant returned the letter with changes to some of the terms and conditions.
-Defendant wrote Plaintiff a letter, saying the offer, 2,000,000.00 for the stocks was inadequate and asked if Plaintiff would instead consider paying 2,750,000.00 for the stocks.
-Defendant invited the Plaintiff to “resubmit” his offer.
-The Plaintiff wrote the Defendant a letter, signed by the Plaintiff, which was captioned “Acceptance of Offer”.
-The Plaintiff entered into a contract with a third party to sell coal from Bear Tooth.
-The Defendant then decided to not go through with the deal.
-The Plaintiff sued Defendant on the basis of breach of contract, and alternatively on the grounds of equitable estoppel.

HOLDING:
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the exchange of letters between appellant and appellee did not satisfy the statute of frauds.

ANALYSIS:
-In so ruling, the appellate court noted that the letter upon which appellant acted was not an offer, but was merely an invitation to continue negotiations.
-The letter plainly stated that appellee remained "receptive to an offer."
-The letter referred to another commitment appellee had for the sale of the stock, implying that it would have to free itself from that commitment before undertaking another.
-Further, appellee's letter also specified the manner in which the deal would be closed.
-Finally, appellee's letter concluded, not with an offer to close the deal, but with an invitation that appellant resubmit an offer.

OUTCOME: The appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to appellee seller in appellant buyer's action claiming breach of contract in the sale of stock because the exchange of letters between the parties did not satisfy the statute of frauds, as no firm offer was made.


---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

John Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. case brief

John Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. case brief summary
210 F.3d 88

SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff consumer appealed an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which granted defendant corporation's motion for summary judgment in the consumer's action that sought specific performance of an alleged offer of a fighter jet by the corporation.

OVERVIEW: Using television commercials, the corporation conducted a promotion in which it offered merchandise in exchange for "points" earned by purchasing its soft drink. For each item of merchandise sported by a teenager in the commercial, the ad noted the number of points needed to get it. When the teenager was shown in the jet, the ad prices it as 7 million points.

ARGUMENT:
The consumer alleged that the ad was an offer, that he accepted the offer by tendering the equivalent of 7 million points, and that the corporation breached its contract to deliver the jet.

HOLDING:
The district court granted the corporation's motion for summary judgment on the grounds (1) that the commercial did not amount to an offer of goods; (2) that no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers the jet; and (3) that the alleged contract could not satisfy the New York statute of frauds. On appeal, the court affirmed for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.


OUTCOME: The court affirmed the grant of the corporation's motion for summary judgment.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Morris Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store case brief

Morris Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store case brief summary 
86 N.W.2d 689

SYNOPSIS:
Defendant appealed from a judgment awarded to plaintiff for breach of contract and an order of the Municipal Court of Minneapolis (Minnesota) denying defendant's motion for amended findings of fact or, in the alternative, for a new trial.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff brought an action against defendant for damages for defendant's failure to sell to plaintiff an item advertised in the newspaper.

HOLDING:
The court determined that the offer by defendant of the sale of the item was clear, definite, and explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation.

ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff, having successfully managed to comply with the terms of the advertisement, and having offered the stated purchase price of the article, was entitled to performance on the part of defendant. The court here agreed with the trial court's holding that the conduct of the parties created sufficient mutuality of obligation to constitute a contract of sale.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment awarded to plaintiff for breach of contract and the denial of defendant's motion for amended findings of fact or in the alternative, for a new trial.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

J.W. Southworth v. Joseph Oliver case brief

Southworth v. Oliver case brief summary
587 P.2d 994

SYNOPSIS:
Appellant landowners sought review of judgment of specific performance for sale of land in favor of appellee purchaser in the Circuit Court of Grant County (Oregon).

OVERVIEW: Appellant landowners sought review of judgment of specific performance of the sale of their ranch to appellee purchaser, contending a letter mailed by them was not an offer to sell and a proper acceptance sufficient to constitute a binding contract for enforcement purposes was lacking.

HOLDING:
The court rejected landowners' argument and affirmed the judgment. The court explained modern law construes both acts and words as having the meaning a reasonable person would attach to them in view of surrounding circumstances and a contract includes not only what parties said, but what is necessarily implied from what they said.

ANALYSIS:
-The court found landowners' letter quoting a price, when considered together with the facts and circumstances, constituted an offer and purchaser's acceptance resulted in a binding contract.
-The court observed landowners sought out adjacent purchaser indicating their interest in selling the land and determining a price.
-The court rejected the argument that the terms were too indefinite, explaining the absence of a security provision was a subordinate detail of performance to be properly made certain by court decree because sufficient expressed intent already existed.

RULES:
A price quotation or advertisement may contain sufficient indication of willingness to enter a bargain so that the party to whom it is addressed would be justified in believing that his assent would conclude the bargain.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed judgment requiring specific performance of the sale of appellant landowners' ranch to appellee purchaser because a binding contract was created when landowners' letter quoting a purchase price together with surrounding circumstances constituted an offer that purchaser accepted and subordinate details of performance which were not defined were of such a nature to properly be supplied by the court.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Joseph Lonergan v. Albert Scolnick case brief

Joseph Lonergan v. Albert Scolnick case brief summary
129 Cal.App.2d 179

SYNOPSIS:
laintiff appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California) in an action against defendant for specific performance or for damages.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff brought an action against defendant for specific performance or damages. The parties corresponded about a plot of land defendant had advertised for sale. Plaintiff set up an escrow account in the event that he decided to purchase the land. Defendant sold the land to another party, resulting in this action. The trial court found that plaintiff and defendant did not enter into a contract as alleged in plaintiff's complaint, and that defendant was entitled to judgment against plaintiff. Defendant's advertisement in the paper was a mere request for an offer.

HOLDING:
The court here agreed with the trial court's finding that no contract had been entered into between the parties, and found that the trial court's construction of the letters exchanged between the parties as inquiries and answers, rather than acceptance, was reasonable.

ANALYSIS:
Further assent on the part of defendant was required to show acceptance.

RULES:
-There can be no contract unless the minds of the parties have met and mutually agreed upon some specific thing.
-This is usually evidenced by one party making an offer which is accepted by the other party.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment for defendant in plaintiff's action against defendant for specific performance or for damages.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Wrench, LLC v. Taco Bell Corp. case brief

Wrench, LLC v. Taco Bell Corp. case brief summary
51 F. Supp. 2d 840

SYNOPSIS:
Artists (P), sued corporation (D) for breach of contract, conversion, unfair competition, and misappropriation. 
The defendant moved for summary judgment.

FACTS:
The artists (P) developed a Chihuahua character that appeared on apparel as well as other merchandise.
At a trade show, the P's discussed their character with the defendant corporation's representative.
At the same time, another firm was also promoting the same character to another representative of the defendant.
During this time period, the D hired a new advertising agency.
The new agency pitched the idea of using a Chihuahua.
The defendant used the Chihuahua that was developed by the advertising agency and the plaintiffs sued for conversion, breach of contract, misappropriation, and unfair competition.
The defendant moved for summary judgment.

HOLDING:
Summary judgment was granted and the case was terminated.
The court stated that the plaintiff's established an implied in fact contract, however, their claims were preempted by the Copyright Act because the implied contract created legal rights that were equivalent to the rights that were within the general scope of copyright.

ANALYSIS:
Furthermore, the court found that the concept of using a Chihuahua in commercials was independently created.  The ideas of the plaintiffs' were not novel.

OUTCOME: The court granted the corporation's (D) motion for summary judgment.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co. case brief

Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co. case brief summary
127 Mo.App. 383, 105 S.W. 777 (Mo. App. 1907)
SYNOPSIS:
Appeal from judgment of the St. Louis City Circuit Court (Missouri) for the employer on an alleged breach of an employment contract.

OVERVIEW: Appellant employee of respondent continued working for respondent after the expiration of his written contract of employment. Appellant alleged that when he asked respondent's president if his employment would continue for another year, he was told that he was all right and need not worry. Appellant understood this statement to be a renewal of his contract. When he was terminated, appellant sued for breach of contract. The trial court ruled for the employer.

HOLDING:
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the employer's words were sufficient to constitute the renewal of the employment contract.

RULES:
-To constitute a contract there must be a meeting of the minds of the parties, and both must agree to the same thing in the same sense.
-The inner intention of parties to a conversation subsequently alleged to create a contract, cannot either make a contract of what transpired or prevent one from arising, if the words used were sufficient to constitute a contract.
-In so far as their intention is an influential element, it is only such intention as the words or acts of the parties indicate; not one secretly cherished which is inconsistent with those words or acts.
-The primary object of construction in contract law is to discover the intention of the parties.
-This intention in express contracts is embodied in the words used and is deduced therefrom.
-This rule applies to oral contracts and contracts in writing, and it is recognized by courts of equity.

OUTCOME: The court reversed and remanded because the employer's words were sufficient to constitute the renewal of the employment contract.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Daniel Mills v. Seth Wyman case brief

Mills v. Wyman case brief summary
20 Mass. 207


SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff good Samaritan appealed the decision of a court of common pleas (Massachusetts) issuing a judgment in favor of defendant parent in plaintiff's assumpsit action to cover compensation for the board, nursing, and care of defendant's son.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff provided board, nursing, and care to defendant's adult son for a two week period after he returned from a voyage at sea poor, in distress, and sick. After plaintiff had finished caring for defendant's son, defendant wrote a letter promising to pay plaintiff for his expenses. When defendant did not pay as he promised, plaintiff sued. Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed for lack of consideration. Plaintiff appealed.

HOLDING:
The supreme court affirmed because there was no consideration for defendant's promise to pay plaintiff's expenses.

ANALYSIS:
-The kindness and services provided for defendant's son were not bestowed at defendant's request, and defendant was not legally obligated to support his son in any way.
-Thus, because defendant's son was an adult who was responsible for his own debts, any debt he incurred created no obligation upon defendant.
-Without consideration, defendant's promise founded upon such a debt had no legally binding force.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment because defendant's promise to pay expenses incurred for the care of his adult son was not supported by consideration because the services provided for defendant's son were not bestowed at defendant's request and defendant was not legally obligated to support his son in any way.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

First Hawaiian Bank v. Zukerkorn case brief

First Hawaiian Bank v. Zukerkorn case brief summary

FACTS: Action was instituted by bank to recover balance owing on two notes and on a credit
card account.

ISSUE: Whether the new promise to pay off past debt constituted consideration to re-invoke
old promise top pay off debt.

HOLDING:
(1) a question of fact precluding summary judgment was presented on issue
whether a new promise to pay balance owing on notes, collection of which was barred by
applicable six-year statute of limitations, was created by an express promise on part of
debtor to pay balance to bank, by an express acknowledgment, or by part payment, and
(2) even if debtor expressly acknowledged balance owing on note executed in favor of bank,
collection of which was barred by statute of limitations, or made part payment of balance
owing, such action on part of debtor was only prima facie evidence of a new promise which
could be rebutted by other evidence and by circumstances under which it was made.

RULES:
Restatement 2d § 82 – Promise to pay Indebtedness; Effect on the Statute of
Limitations
(1) A promise to pay all or part of an antecedent contractual or quasi-contractual
indebtedness owed by the promisor is binding if the indebtedness is still enforceable
or would be except for the effect of a statute of limitations.
(2) The following facts operate as such a promise unless other facts indicate a different
intention.
(a) A voluntary acknowledgement to the obligee, admitting the present existence of the
antecedent indebtedness; or
(b) A voluntary transfer of money, a negotiable instrument, or other thing by the
obligor to the obligee, made as interest on or part payment of or collateral security
for the antecedent indebtedness; or
(c) A statement to the obligee that the statute of limitations will nto be pleaded as a
defense.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Congregation Kadimah Toras–Moshe v. Robert A. DeLeo case brief

Congregation Kadimah Toras–Moshe v. Robert A. DeLeo case brief summary
405 Mass. 365, 540 N.E.2d 691 (Mass. 1989)

SYNOPSIS:
Promisee of decedent's oral promise for charitable contribution appealed summary judgment of the Superior Court Department (Massachusetts) dismissing promisee's action to compel administrator of decedent's estate to fulfill decedent's promise.

OVERVIEW: Decedent made oral promise to give promisee, a synagogue, money for a library. Administrator of decedent's estate refused to give the money to promisee, who brought an action to enforce decedent's promise. The lower court granted summary judgment for the estate.

HOLDING:
-On appeal, the court affirmed.
-Decedent's promise was unsupported by consideration.

ANALYSIS:
-Promisee's allocation of the money in its budget did not constitute reliance.
-The court declined to abandon the requirement of consideration or reliance for an enforceable contract in cases of charitable subscriptions.
-Moreover, enforcing an oral promise against an estate would be against public policy.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the lower court, because decedent's promise was not supported by consideration or reliance and because enforcing an oral promise against decedent's estate would be against public policy.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank of Jamestown case brief

Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank of Jamestown case brief summary
246 N.Y. 369

SYNOPSIS:Plaintiff college appealed decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (New York) affirming judgment in favor of defendant decedent entered upon the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging breach of contract regarding a charitable subscription.

OVERVIEW: The decedent promised to give plaintiff college a charitable subscription 30 days after her death and with the condition that the scholarship established with the subscription be named in her honor. She donated $ 1,000 prior to her death. After her death, plaintiff filed suit against defendant executor for the unpaid balance of the subscription. Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and judgment was entered in favor of defendant.

HOLDING:
The appellate division affirmed, but on further appeal, the court concluded that the duty assumed by plaintiff to perpetuate the name of decedent by naming the scholarship in her honor when it accepted part of the donation was sufficient consideration to make the charitable subscription promise legally enforceable.

ANALYSIS:
Thus, because there was sufficient consideration to make the promise enforceable, judgment was reversed.

OUTCOME: Judgment was reversed because the duty assumed by plaintiff to perpetuate the name of decedent by naming the scholarship in her honor when it accepted part of the decedent's donation was sufficient consideration to make the charitable subscription promise legally enforceable.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

William F. Langer v. Superior Steel Corp. case brief

Langer v. Superior Steel Corp. case brief summary
318 Pa. 490; 178 A. 490; 1935 Pa. LEXIS 600

SYNOPSIS:
Appellant employer sought review of a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County (Pennsylvania), which was entered in favor of appellee employee in his action of assumpsit for breach of an alleged contract.

OVERVIEW: The employee brought an action against the employer for breach of an alleged contract. Judgment was entered in favor of the employee, and the employer appealed, denying that the transaction at issue resulted in a contract.

HOLDING:
Upon review, the court reversed the judgment and entered judgment in favor of the employer. The court held that the employee's case failed for want of sufficient evidence that the president of the corporation had the authority to bind the employer to pay the sum of $ 100 per month as long as the employee should live.

ANALYSIS:
-The duty assigned to the president by the board of directors was to notify the employee of the action to pay $ 100 a month until further action of the board.
-To agree to pay a pensioned employee for life was not within the employer's by-laws.
-Moreover, the court held that there was is no evidence that the employer proposed to do anything more than to pay to the employee the sum of $ 100 a month until further action of the board.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment and entered judgment in favor of the employer.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Omni Group, Inc. v. Seattle–First National Bank case brief

Omni Group, Inc. v. Seattle–First National Bank case brief summary
645 P.2d 727

SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff real estate developer appealed a decision from the Superior Court for King County (Washington), which entered a judgment in favor of defendant property owner individually and as executor of the estate of his late wife, in the developer's action to enforce an earnest money agreement for the purchase of realty owned by the owners.

OVERVIEW: The owners had listed their property for sale with a real estate broker. The broker subsequently offered the property to the developer. The parties signed an earnest money agreement subject to an engineer's satisfactory feasibility report. When the developer sought to enforce the agreement, the trial court determined that by making its obligations subject to a satisfactory engineer's feasibility report, the developer rendered its promise to buy the property illusory.

HOLDING:
On appeal, the court reversed and concluded that the developer's promise was not illusory.

ANALYSIS:
-The court found that the earnest money agreement created two conditions precedent to the developer's duty to buy the property.
-It had to receive the report and it had to find it satisfactory.
-The court found that the standard of evaluating the developer's satisfaction was good faith.
-The developer could cancel the contract only if it was not satisfactory, otherwise it had to give notice and purchase the property.
-Accordingly, the promise was not illusory and the earnest money agreement was supported by consideration.
-That the owners' agents failed to convey certain additional terms did not affect the validity of the agreement.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment and remanded with instructions to enter a decree ordering specific performance of the earnest money agreement.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

W. M. McMichael v. Harley T. Price case brief

McMichael v. Price case brief summary
58 P.2d 549

SYNOPSIS:Defendant appealed from the judgement of the District Court, Tulsa County (Oklahoma), which returned a judgment in favor of plaintiff in a breach of contract action.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff instituted action against defendant to recover damages for breach of a contract. A verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff and defendant appealed. Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to furnish sand which plaintiff had sold for shipment and that defendant renounced the contract. Defendant alleged that plaintiff breached the terms of the contract by failing and refusing to pay for sand shipped each month as required by the contract and advised plaintiff he would cease making further shipments unless he paid as provided in the agreement. Defendant contended that the contract was a mere revocable offer and was not binding for want of mutuality.

HOLDING:
On appeal, the court affirmed, finding the contract was mutually binding upon the parties.

ANALYSIS:
The court also held that the finding by the jury in favor of plaintiff regarding defendant's claim that plaintiff did not correctly pay for the sand was supported by competent evidence.

RULES:
Where the terms of a contract are susceptible of two significations, that will be adopted which gives some operation to the contract, rather than that which renders it inoperative.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed, finding the contract was mutually binding upon the parties, and holding that the finding by the jury in favor of plaintiff regarding defendant's claim that plaintiff did not correctly pay for the sand was supported by competent evidence.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Rehm–Zeiher Co. v. F.G. Walker Co. case brief

Rehm–Zeiher Co. v. F.G. Walker Co. case brief summary
156 Ky. 6

SYNOPSIS:
Appellant wholesaler filed a breach of contract against appellee distiller after the distiller refused to sell cases of whiskey to the wholesaler. The Jefferson Circuit Court, Common Pleas Branch, Fourth Division (Kentucky) entered a directed verdict in favor of the distiller. The wholesaler appealed.

OVERVIEW: The parties entered into a multi-year contract for the purchase and sale of cases of whiskey at pre-established prices. The contract provided that the wholesaler could purchase any number of cases per year up to a prescribed limit. The wholesaler could choose to not purchase any cases if it so desired. In the fourth year of the contract, the price of whisky rose substantially. The wholesaler demanded the entire year's allotment. The distiller deliver about one-fourth of the demand. The wholesaler argued that the contract was an enforceable mutual agreement.

HOLDING:
-The court affirmed the directed verdict that was entered in favor of the distiller.
-The court held that the wholesaler's action was not cognizable because the contract lacked mutuality of obligation.

ANALYSIS:
-The court stated that contracts that were valid must be mutual and binding upon both parties.
-The court found that the mutuality was lacking because the contract was not binding on the wholesaler, and that it was not enforceable by the distiller.

RULES:
Contracts that are valid must be mutual and binding upon both parties.

OUTCOME: In the wholesaler's breach of contract action against the distiller, the directed verdict that was entered in favor of the distiller was affirmed.


---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Alfred L. Angel v. John E. Murray, Jr. case brief

Angel v. Murray case brief summary
322 A.2d 630

SYNOPSIS:Defendants appealed the civil judgment of the Superior Court (Rhode Island) finding that additional payments under a contract were illegal and ordering defendants to repay the money.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs, citizens, filed a civil action seeking repayment of additional fees paid to defendant refuse collector by defendant city budget director under a contract. Defendant refuse collector was awarded a contract with the city. He requested additional payments to cover unexpected increases in refuse. Plaintiffs alleged the payments violated the city charter and were made without consideration. The court found for plaintiffs.

HOLDING:
On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the city charter did not intend to limit the city's ability to amend an existing contract.

ANALYSIS:
-The court abandoned the preexisting duty rule, and found that the city voluntarily agreed to give defendant refuse collector the requested fees and amend the contract.
-The modification was made during a time when the contract was not fully performed, and evidence was presented that the volume of refuse had unexpectedly risen substantially.
-Therefore, the decision to pay the additional fees was fair and equitable.

OUTCOME: The court reversed, holding that the city charter did not prohibit city from amending a contract, and the amendment was voluntary, made during the existence of the contract, and in response to unanticipated, substantial increases in refuse.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Alaska Packers’ Association v. Domenico case brief

Alaska Packers’ Association v. Domenico case brief summary
117 F. 99

SYNOPSIS:
Appellant company challenged the judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, in a case where libelants, fishermen, brought suit against appellant, alleging that appellant had contracted to pay them higher wages.

OVERVIEW: Libelants, fishermen, contracted with appellant company to sail from San Francisco to Alaska and work for appellant during the fishing season. When the ship arrived in Alaska, libelants demanded higher wages than were provided for in the contract; libelants stated that they would not work unless they were paid additional wages. A supervisor for appellant agreed to the demand and executed an altered contract, compelled by the remote location and difficulty of finding replacement workers. When libelants returned to San Francisco, appellant denied the validity of the later contract.

HOLDING:
The court held that the later contract was not supported by adequate consideration because it was based solely on libelants' agreement to render the exact services that they were already obligated to perform.

ANALYSIS:
When parties did what they were already contractually obligated to do, they could not demand additional compensation.

OUTCOME: The court held that the contract was not supported by adequate consideration because it was based solely on libelants' agreement to render the exact services that they were already obligated to perform.


---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->

Clifton Jones v. Star Credit Corp. case brief

Clifton Jones v. Star Credit Corp. case brief summary
298 N.Y.S.2d 264

SYNOPSIS:Defendant credit corporation appealed from an order of the trial court (New York), establishing that a freezer unit purchased by plaintiff debtors had a maximum retail value of approximately $ 300, and the sales contract was unconscionable within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code, U.C.C. § 3-302 (1964).

OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs, husband and wife welfare recipients, agreed to purchase a home freezer unit from defendant retailer for $ 900. With the addition of time credit charges, credit life insurance, credit property insurance, and sales tax, the purchase price totaled $ 1234. Plaintiffs paid $ 619 toward their purchase, but defendant claimed that with various added credit charges, there was a balance due of $ 819. The trial court established that the freezer unit, when purchased by plaintiffs, had a maximum retail value of approximately $ 300.

HOLDING:
On appeal, the court found that, under the circumstances, the sales agreement was unconscionable within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code, U.C.C. § 2-302 (1964).

ANALYSIS:
The defendant was amply compensated, and that the sales agreement was to be reformed and amended by changing the payments called for therein to equal the amount already paid by plaintiffs.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->