Contracts Midterm Spring 2020 (Case Holdings/Rule of Law)

Speakers of Sport, Inc. v. ProServ, Inc.

Rule of Law A company's aspirational sales pitch to a client of a competitor in an attempt to lure the client away does not constitute a promise to contract nor amount to an inducement to breach of contract.

Ortelere v. Teachers' Retirement Board of New York

Rule of Law A contract can be declared void if a party is unable to understand the transaction and the other party knew or had reason to know of the incapacity.

Cundick v. Broadbent

Rule of Law A contract entered by a party claiming to be mentally deficient is not void, but voidable by the mentally deficient person if that person lacked sufficient reason to understand the nature and effect of his or her actions regarding the contract, unless there is evidence of fraud or overreaching by the other party.

Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corp.

Rule of Law A contract is voidable on the ground of economic duress if it is established that the party making the claim was forced to agree to the contract by means of a wrongful threat precluding the exercise of his free will.

Doe v. Great Expectations

Rule of Law A court may award full restitution damages in an action based on violations of a statute designed to protect consumers.

Bollinger v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry Stripping and Construction Company

Rule of Law A court of equity has the authority to reform a written contract in order to conform it to the mutual understanding of the parties, even when one of the parties denies that a mistake was made.

Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank

Rule of Law A defendant who does not have a duty to disclose known facts to a plaintiff will not be liable for fraud based on his mere concealment of those facts from the plaintiff.

Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc.

Rule of Law A statement of opinion may be actionable as a misrepresentation where the party stating his opinion possesses superior knowledge of the truth or falsity of the statement.

Kenai Chrysler Center, Inc. v. Denison

Rule of Law A ward under legal guardianship is precluded from entering into a valid contract with another.

Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.

Rule of Law A written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face is the best evidence of the parties' intent and must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.

Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.

Rule of Law Contracts of adhesion will be enforced against the adhering party if its terms and conditions fall within the reasonable expectations of the adhering party and the contract overall is not unconscionable. (CA LAW***)

Nanakuli Paving & Rock Co. v. Shell Oil Co.

Rule of Law Courts can admit evidence of customary trade usage and course of performance for parties to demonstrate implied contract terms.

Masterson v. Sine

Rule of Law Even when it is unclear whether a written contract is intended by the parties to be complete, evidence of a separate oral agreement may be admissible to prove the terms of the contract if the oral agreement is something that would naturally be made as a separate agreement by the parties given their actual situation and circumstances when drafting the written contract.

Columbia Nitrogen Corp. v. Royster Co.

Rule of Law Evidence of course of dealing and trade usage is admissible to supplement and explain a contract as long as the proffered evidence can be reasonably construed as consistent with the terms of the written agreement.

O'Callaghan v. Waller & Beckwith Realty Co.

Rule of Law Exculpatory clauses in contracts are generally enforced ONLY if they do not violate settled public policy of the state and provided the public interest in the relationship of the parties does not militate against enforcement.

Douglass v. Pflueger Hawaii, Inc.

Rule of Law Hawaii's child labor law provides for the protections of the infancy doctrine and renders inapplicable the general rule that contracts entered into by minors are voidable in the employment context.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.

Rule of Law If a preliminary consideration of all credible evidence offered to prove the intent of the parties still leaves contractual terms fairly susceptible to at least two rational interpretations, extrinsic evidence relevant to prove either of these meanings is admissible.

Beaver v. Brumlow

Rule of Law In New Mexico, an oral contract for the sale of real property may be removed from the statute of frauds if an outsider, viewing the totality of the circumstances, could reasonably conclude that an agreement regarding the real property existed.

Kannavos v. Annino

Rule of Law Knowingly disclosing partial facts about a transaction in such a way that the disclosure is misleading constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation and is a basis for rescission of the contract.

Watkins & Son v. Carrig

Rule of Law Parties may rescind an existing agreement and enter a new agreement to pay a higher price for performance already required under the original contract if the parties mutually agree to the change in terms.

Monarco v. Lo Greco

Rule of Law Reliance on the Statute of Frauds by a party attempting to avoid an agreement may be estopped when the other party relied to their detriment on the oral promise or the party attempting to avoid the agreement was unjustly enriched.

Tuckwiller v. Tuckwiller

Rule of Law Specific performance may be granted without considering the adequacy of damages where the subject of the agreement is real property and the agreement between the parties is fair when viewed prospectively from the time of contracting.

Raffles v. Wichelhaus (The PeerlessCase)

Rule of Law There is no contract if there is a mutual misunderstanding by both parties as to the meaning of a term of an agreement.

Trident Center v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.

Rule of Law Under California law, a contract must be interpreted in light of any relevant evidence of the parties' intent, including evidence extrinsic to the written agreement itself, even if the agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face.

Mitchill v. Lath

Rule of Law Under the parol evidence rule, written or oral evidence that contradicts a final written agreement is not admissible in a court of law unless it constitutes a parol collateral agreement that is completely distinct from and independent of the final written agreement.

W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. Giancontieri

Rule of Law When a contract is unambiguous and complete, it will be enforced according to its terms.

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

Rule of Law When an element of unconscionability is present at the time of contract formation, the resulting contract is not enforceable.

McKinnon v. Benedict

Rule of Law Where consideration for a bargain is so inadequate as to be unconscionable and there is great inequity between the parties, an equitable remedy cannot be used to enforce the agreement against the oppressed party.

Alaska Packers' Ass'n v. Domenico

Rule of Law Where parties enter a new agreement under which one party agrees to do no more than he was already obligated to do under an existing contract, the new agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration.

Colfax Envelope Corp. v. Local No. 458-3M

Rule of Law Where the parties to an agreement have conflicting understandings of an essential term due to a mutual mistake or latent ambiguity, and neither party is more to blame than the other, the parties may rescind the contract.

St. Ansgar Mills, Inc. v. Streit

Rule of Law Written confirmation of an oral agreement, when received within a reasonable time, will bring an agreement within the Uniform Commercial Code's exception to the Statute of Frauds, if the agreement is between merchants.

Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp.

Rule of Law: If the parties to a contract subjectively, but in good faith, construe an ambiguous term differently, courts may look to external factors to determine the proper interpretation of the term.