Schools of Jurisprudence

Hypothetical #1: F: Declaration of Independence quote about inalienable rights I: Which school supports the arguments? H: Natural School ROL: Deals with moral/ethical principles inherent in human nature that people can figure out for themselves Hypothetical #2: F: Pennsylvania Law statute I: What school describes statute H: Positive School ROL: Whatever written law says must be followed Hypothetical #3: F: Marriage between Man/Woman stood test of time, must be proper I: What school? H: Historic School ROL: Looks to pst to see what laws should be Hypothetical #4: F: Public Schools should be integrated I: What School? H: Legal Realism ROL: Law changes with society

Purpose of the Judiciary

Hypothetical #5:

F: Bridge collapsed due to poor maintenance, Christina suffered permanent damage. PA legislature not passed negligence laws, which would provide recovery I: Should she be able to sue? H: Yes, court will make precedent with the case or use (past rulings) to make a ruling ROL: Precedent

History of the Judiciary

Hypothetical #6: F: Neighbor always swimming in pool, told him not welcome, continues, called police but cant do anything. I: What court should hear, what remedies available? H: Local, sue for an injunction ROL: Injunction will order him to stop Hypothetical #7: F: Contract with company to sell book for $100, runs out of them, bookstore sells for $150 I: What remedies available? H: Sue for $50 ROL: Contract Law

Basic Judicial Requirements

Hypothetical #8: F: Brett breaks surfer guys nose in Florida, extensive and painful surgery to fix, cost $1 million. Brett lives in PA, Surfer CA. I: Can surfer sue in CA? H: No, plaintiff has burden of proving defendant guilty. CA has no jurisdiction. Florida or PA would though. ROL: Specific Personal Jurisdiction, act occurred in Florida. General Personal Jurisdiction, Brett lives in Pennsylvania.

Personal/ InRem Jurisdiction

Hypothetical #9: F: Aunt in FL dies, you (PA resident) and sister (IL resident) are heirs. Each has proof of who inherits property.

I: Does FL have jurisdiction H: Yes, InRem jurisdiction, property in question is in FL ROL: Since land is subject of dispute the state in which it is located has jurisdiction Hypothetical #10: F: Brianna causes major car accident, she is resident of NY I: Does NY have specific jurisdiction? H: No, has general personal jurisdiction ROL: Specific personal jurisdiction applies to the state in which the action took place Hypothetical #11: F: Ashely gets sick at Busch Gardens (VA) and incurs many hospital bills. Busch Gardens does much business and advertising in PA (where she is from) I: Can she sue in PA b/c of personal jurisdiction H: Yes, b/c of general personal jurisdiction ROL: If person/company has continuous and systematic contacts within a state then general personal jurisdiction is established Hypothetical #12: F: Hypothetical #8 again I: Lawsuit brought in CA, reaction? H: Would be dismissed. No personal jurisdiction there ROL: No continuous contacts, action did not take place there. No personal jurisdiction. Not dealing with property so no InRem. Hypothetical #13: F: LRU is Delaware Co. Corporate office is in PA. Manufacturing in CA. Extensive business in SC, executives often travel there and has maintenance facility there. I: Where is there general personal jurisdiction? H: Delaware, PA, CA, SC ROL: Delaware- state of incorporation. PA-office location. CA- manufacturing. SC- extensive business, continuous contact Hypothetical #14:

F: In contract with ABC company. Incorporated in Delaware, does business PA. You NJ resident. Contract says disputes resolved in Arizona. I: What court has personal jurisdiction? H: Arizona because contract says so ROL: You agreed to contract so therefore must follow it. Hypothetical #15: F: Arcadia buys Oak. Owner also sold to NY developer. Arcadia sues NY developer in PA. NY has no business except for oak in PA. I: Does PA have jurisdiction? H: Yes, InRem jurisdiction. Oak is in PA and case is a land dispute so it must be seen in the state the land resides ROL: If land is the subject of a dispute the state in which the land resides maintains jurisdiction Hypothetical #16: F: (cont hypo 15) Arcadia also dispute with NY dealing with building Brubaker. Files suit in PA because NY may own Oak creating InRem I: Your reaction? H: No, Brubaker has nothing to do with Oak. Would need more info to establish personal jurisdiction in this case

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Hypothetical #17: F: Black person denied business because of race. Sues business owner for violation of the U.S. constitution. Owner moves to dismiss suit in federal court b/c lacks diversity jurisdiction I: Should it be dismissed from Federal Court? H: No, violates U.S. constitution which means it deals with federal law. ROL: Exclusive jurisdiction states that any case dealing with federal law must be heard in a federal court. Hypothetical #18: F:PA legislature gives themselves a pay raise. Sued in federal court for $15 million. Plaintiff lives in PA. I: PA legislature request dismissal for lack of federal subject matter. Should it be? H: Yes, no federal question and both are from the same state so there is no diversity jurisdiction.

ROL: In order to be heard in federal court there must be federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Hypothetical #19: F: Richard (NJ) sent to jail but was not given a lawyer as provided by PA constitution. Sues judge personally for $50,000 in federal court. I: Judge moves to dismiss case for lack of federal subject matter. Should it be? H: Yes, $50,000 is too little to qualify for diversity jurisdiction. ROL: Since it is dealing with state law (even though U.S. Const. gives right to attorney, not a part of this pact pattern) no federal question. And too little amount of $ to be diversity jurisdiction. Hypothetical #20: F: Rebecca in severe car crash caused by MD resident. Suffered permanent damage and will never walk again. Sues in federal ct. I: Should it be in Federal court? H: Yes, they are from different states and the damages will most likely be more than $75,000 ROL: Diversity jurisdiction states that if parties are from different states and the damages are more than $75,000 the case can be brought before federal court. Hypothetical #21: F: Park ranger negligently fired gun and killed Amy. Amys family sues U.S. government in state ct. I: Should it be dismissed? H: Yes, it is a case against the U.S. government which gives Federal Gov. exclusive jurisdiction. ROL: Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction when dealing with suits against the U.S.

Venue
Hypothetical #22: F: Christian slipped in puddle at movie theatre and sues in philly court. He & all witnesses live in Lackawana county. I: Should Philly have venue? H: No, there is no connection to philly at all unless the theatre was there

ROL: Venue is similar to personal jurisdiction. Since the accident did not occur in philly and the theatre does not conduct business there the case can not be heard there. Hypothetical #23: F: I enter into contract w/ AT&T in Montgomery County. Principle place of business-Dauphin. Registered Agent-Philadelphia I: If I sue where can the suit be filed? H: Montgomery, Dauphin, and Philadelphia county because it is where the contract was established, the principle place of business, and the registered agent is there (respectively) ROL: Venue law states that AT&T can be sued where the action took place, where their principle place of business is, and where their registered agent is located

Standing
Hypothetical #24: F: Mom gets into accident. Doesnt sue 16 yr old driver b/c he she feels bad for him. I: Can I sue to get my mom compensated? H: No, I have no legal stake. If mom was the Defendant then the 16 yr olds parents could sue her because they are his legal guardians. ROL: Standing law states that in order to sue one must have a legal stake or interest in the case or have suffered/threat of harm. Hypothetical #25: F:Have defective tires from Ford. I: Can I sue? H: For the replacement of the tires, yes. Not for the potential fatal accident because it the claim is not ripe. ROL: Standing law states that in order to sue the case must be ripe. Since they are responsible for the defective tires they are responsible for replacing them however.

Consideration
Hypothetical #26: F: John sells Lucy old telegraph machine that is worthless for $50,000. After he sends it she sends him a check for $1,000 saying it was not worth $50,000 and that $1,000 is more than enough. I: Is there enough consideration to enforce the contract?

H: Yes, consideration does not have to be monetary value, as long as each party benefits. ROL: value referred to in consideration does not need to be equal to monetary value of property exchanged, can be established by benefit received by the parties. Hypothetical #27: F: Company buys swamp land in FL for more $ than its worth because they are used to paying CA prices. I: Could the company sue for the extra amount they paid? H: No, there was consideration. It was up to them to get the land appraised before the purchase was made. ROL: The value exchanged can far out value the property exchanged Hypothetical #28: F: Judge Cerski promises to give us all $5,000. I: Does a gift constitute consideration? H: No, there is no consideration on both sides. ROL: Gifts do not establish consideration, both parties must contribute something of value/benefit. Hypothetical #29: F: Bens granddad offers to pay $250,000 if he does not drink or have sex until he is 25 (3yrs). He agrees and follows through. When tries to collect granddad refuses to pay. I: Does giving up a legal right constitute consideration? H: Yes, there was consideration. Ben gave up legal rights to certain things (forbearance) in exchange for $250,000 ROL: Forbearance of a legal right creates consideration even if it does not benefit the promisor. Hypothetical #30: F: Mr. Dixon promises to pay Dr. Lewis $ in recognition of service. Tells him to come to his office to receive it. I: Does having to pick up the gift establish consideration? H: No, it is a gift. ROL: In order to establish consideration both sides must benefit. Mr. Dixon did not get anything out of this. Hypothetical #31:

F:In divorce each side gets half of property obtained after marriage. Ashely and Malcolm married in 2000. Malcolms dad gave original copy of Mona Lisa. Ashley offers to relinquish share of painting if he gives up house. I: If he agrees then backs out can Ashley sue for breach of contract? H: No, there was no consideration because Ashely did not actually own half of the painting since it was obtained before the marriage. ROL: If there is no consideration then there is not contract. Hypothetical #32: F: Macys giving away gift cards from $10-$1,000. When you get there they say theyre all out. I: Was there consideration? H: Yes, they benefited by your coming to the store. ROL: Enticing performance by the promise of a giveaway can constitute consideration Hypothetical #33: F:Your 25 yr old son is dying. Taken in by friend. When he dies you promise to pay her for expenses. I: Is there consideration? H: No, he was over 18 so not your responsibility. Also, you did not make the promise before she began the care so you do not need to follow through with it. ROL: Moral obligation is consideration if the promisor had a pre-existing duty (which you did not because he was over 18) and if you make a promise to compensate someone for taking over this duty after they did it, the contract must be enforced. Also, if they took care of/ improves/ preserves property of promisor w/o his request it is considered consideration for the agreement to pay (by the promisor, if he agrees to pay) because of the material benefit received. Hypothetical #34: F: Michael saves Casss life and in doing so suffers severe injuries and will be crippled for life. She promises to pay $100/week for the rest of his life. She dies 15 yrs later and estate refuses to continue payments. I: Should the past promise constitute consideration? H: Yes the consideration was saving her life. Any reasonable person would have done the same thing. She obviously intended on paying for the rest of her life based on 15 yrs of sustained payments.

ROL: Past performance, because she had performed in the past it was reasonable to assume she would continue to perform. Hypothetical #35: F: Contractor accidentally repairs wrong house, owner agrees to pay. I: Is this consideration? H: Yes, because he improved the property of the owner even though it was not requested and the owner still agreed to pay. ROL: If someone improves the property of the promisor w/o his request it is considered consideration for the agreement to pay (if the promisor does agree to pay) because of the material benefit received. Hypothetical #36: F: Bull you care for escapes from pen. Owner promises to compensate and then doesnt pay. I: Is this consideration even though the owner never requested your services? H: Yes, a promise founded on former obligation or on a value previously received is binding. ROL: If someone improves the property of the promisor w/o his request it is considered consideration for the agreement to pay (if the promisor does agree to pay) because of the material benefit received. Hypothetical #37: F: Stephanies husband died and her brother-in-law offers her a piece of land in SC to raise her children. She moves there but after 2 yrs moves her to a shack, and then kicks her out. I: Is promise supported by Consideration? H: Kind of, this is not really forbearance, but it will be supported and enforced b/c plaintiff relied to her detriment on his promise. ROL: Promissory Estoppel, promise made, promise reasonable relied upon, promise relied on to his detriment. Hypothetical # 38: F: Mr. Dixon promises Arcadia $1M to build a new building. Arcadia built the building, but he said things have changed and will not be giving the money. I: Is this sufficient consideration? H: Yes, Arcadia acted on the promise. Arcadia believed the promise was definite b/c Mr. Dixon approved the plans for the building.

ROL: Promissory Estoppel, promise made, promise reasonable relied upon, promise relied on to his detriment. Hypothetical #39: F: Pedro contacts furniture store to make storage arrangements. Store will store for free and manager offers to insure it. Store burns down and furniture destroyed. I: Will store be required to replace furniture? H: Yes, pedro relied to his detriment by not getting insurance. ROL: Promissory Estoppel, a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of promisee and which does induce action or forbearance is sufficient to enforce the contract. Hypothetical #40: F: Valentine offers to help my estate run my mall. He spends all his time managing the mall. After two years my estate sells mall. Valentine asks for payment, but estate says no because his actions were a gift. I: Should Valentine be compensated? H: Yes, unreasonable to assume he did all that just based on the friendship with me. ROL: Unjust Enrichment, benefit conferred, benefit accepted, inequitable to keep without compensation. Hypothetical #41: F: Valentine takes care of my widowed wife by providing friendly services. My wife dies and he seeks compensation. I: Does his service establish unjust enrichment? H: No, these are just services a friend would provide and he didnt ask for money until after she died. ROL: Services were not above and beyond what a normal friend would do Hypothetical #42: F: Jon has a local lawn cutting business. He asks Mr. Morgan if he wants his lawn cut. He declines. Mr. Morgan breaks his leg and jon asks again, he says yes. Jon then asks for payment, but is refused. I: Is this Unjust Enrichment?

H: Yes, Morgan received a benefit and was aware of it. Based upon the previous requests and the knowledge that Jon does this for money, Morgan cannot expect to receive the services for free. ROL: Unjust Enrichment, defendant received a benefit from the plaintiff and it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without compensating the plaintiff for its value. Hypothetical #43: F: Alexandria and Brianna enter into a contract but with a clause that says Alexandria can terminate whenever and for whatever. I: Does this contract posses consideration? H: No, the contract does not contain consideration b/c Alexandria can revoke hers at anytime, but could enforce the contract against Brianna. No consideration exists because both parties must have mutual obligations to perform under the contract. ROL: Mutuality of Obligation, mutuality is absent when only one of the contracting parties is bound to perform, and the rights of the parties exist at the option of one party only. Hypothetical #44: F: Richard and Hershey contract to have him (non-exclusive) haul chocolate. When he pulls up to pick up, they refuse to give him any to haul. I: Can Richard enforce the contract? Sufficient Consideration? H: No, Hershey did not obligate itself to provide any specific quantity. ROL: Mutuality of Obligation, Mutuality of contract consists in the obligation on each party to do, or to permit something to be done,in consideration of the act or promise of the other. Hypothetical #45: F: Builder said hed build shed for $900. More materials than planned, extra $200. You orally agree. I: Are you bound by agreement? H: no, offer made, you accepted, too bad that he didnt check current prices first. No additional consideration, no addition terms. ROL: Pre-Existing Contactual Duty, if after beginning performance under the terms of an already existing contract, the party cannot stop performance and promise to continue performance for a new promise to pay more money. Hypothetical #46:

F: Company digging foundation for home for $65,000. Hit remains of indian burial site, must spend $200,000 to call in special team. I: Do I pay $65,000 or $200,000? H: If it was unforeseen and company had not control over it then pay $200,000. If they were supposed to x-ray ground or something before hand and didnt, then only have to pay $65,000 ROL: Pre-Existing Contractual Duty, if an unforeseen circumstance occurs that was not in control of the party, then an agreement for additional one-sided consideration will be upheld

The Agreement Process: Offer

Hypothetical #47: F: Jokingly offer to sell lawnmower to neighbor for $5. He expects you to exchange. I: Would this constitute a biding offer? H: No, a reasonable person would not expect this circumstance to be an intentional offer, rather than a joke. ROL: Offer must be seriously intended, whatever a persons real intention may be, when he conductions himself in a way that a reasonable person would believe that he was offering/agreeing to the terms proposed by the other party, and the other party enters into a contract with that person, then that person will be bound as if he actually intended to agree to the contract. Hypothetical #48 F: Lucy says that they entered into an agreement to sell the Zehmer farm at a bar on December 20, 1952. Lucy said he bet Zehmer wouldnt sell the farm for $50,000 cash to which Zehmer said he would.They created a note on the back of a check to the affect that Lucy would pay $50,000 for the farm. Zehmer got his wife to sign and then signed himself. Later on January 13, after Lucy had gotten an attorney to approve the note as a contract, Zehmer refused to go through with the deal. He claimed that it was obviously a joke because he had received 20-25 other offers and had declined. He said he was drunk when the note was written. Zehmer had bought the farm ten years ago for $11,000. I: Reaction?

H: Land sale support by a valid offer and acceptance. Zehmer did not say he was joking before the signing of the contract. Good faith offer and acceptance. Claim of being drunk was contradicted by Zehmers ability to testify in great detail as to what happened. Contracted was created by one defendant (Mr. Zehmer) and signed by a second (Mrs. Zehmer). ROL: Offer must be seriously intended, If his words or acts, judged by a reasonable standard manifest an intention to agree in regard to the matter in question, that agreement is established and it is immaterial what may be the real, but unexpressed state of mind. Hypothetical #49: F: Offer came in mail, I am asking $.23/lb for car of seed. Have offer of 22 3/4 per lb. Sent to all seed customers. Call to accept, company says no. I: can you enforce the contract? H: No, offer is not definite. I am asking is not an offer. ROL: Offer must be definite, must use definite terms to constitute an offer. Hypothetical #50: F: Judge Cerski, I can sell you my car, Malcolm said, Ill take it. I: Is this a definite offer? H: No, I can sell is not the same as I can offer. It does not specify which car Judge Cerski is referring to. ROL: Offer must be definite, in order to establish a contract the language must be exact and definite when making the offer. Hypothetical #51: F: Company puts out ad for a sale stating the time, place, quantity, availability, value, and price. When at the store they refuse to follow offer. I: Is it an enforceable offer? H: Yes, the ad stated the time, place, quantity, availability, value, and price. ROL: Invitations to make offers, ads are usually just invitations to make offers and can be refused, but in this case the offer is clear, definite, explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract. Hypothetical #52: F: Ford runs a standard car ad, type of car, price, % interest on loan. When you go to buy, they decline offer. I: Enforceable offer?

H: No, a reasonable person would know that the APR could only be offered if you qualify for the credit. ROL: Invitations to make offers, most ads are considered preliminary negotiations. Hypothetical #53: F: A mistake was made on a product ad. $.05 instead of $.50. Refused to sell at ad price. I: Binding offer? H: No, not specific enough to be an offer. Just an ad. ROL: Invitations to make offers, where the offer is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer, acceptance, of which will complete the contract. Hypothetical #54: F: Texted offer sell laptop, she didnt get text. I: She really wanted it in the past, can you hold her liable under contract? H: No, offer was never communicated because the text never made it to her. ROL: Offer must be communicated, offeree must know that an offer has been made and must know the offer, if not there can be no legal acceptance by the offeree. there must be direct communication between the offeror and offeree. Hypothetical #55: F: October 25, 2009 made offer. March 1, 2009 offer accepted. I: If i no longer want to perform can i be forced to uphold contract? H: No, the offer ends with a reasonable lapse of time. ROL: Offer ends with lapse of time, if contract specifies fixed time of expiration, offer ends at that time. If no specified time, offer remains open for a reasonable time and then ends. Hypothetical #56: F: Offer was made, but declined. Then two weeks later he changed his mind and accepted I: If he does not want to perform anymore can he be forced to? H: No, he had already rejected the offer. ROL: If the offeree rejects an offer it is terminated. If party changes mind, and attempts to accept offer, acceptance constitutes an offer, which can be accepted/ rejected by original promisor. Hypothetical #57:

F: Offer made, reply is price a little high, ill think about it. I: Reaction? H: Offer was nicely declined. He basically said no. ROL: An offer can be rejected indirectly, the offerees language or conduct must be analyzed using a reasonable person standard. Hypothetical #58: F: Offer is made for several items. Offeree accepts for only some of them. I: Does this acceptance form a binding contract? H: No, because the offer was changed, she basically made another offer back to the original offeror. ROL: Offer ended by counteroffer, the counteroffer ends the original offer and replaces it with a new offer. The two parties switch roles, and the offeree becomes the offeror. If new offer is accepted then there is a contract. Hypothetical #59: F: Offer to sell car made to cousin. Said he would let you know. Send him letter revoking offer. Before getting letter he calls to accept. I: Can cousin enforce offer? H: Yes, the revocation does not become effective till received by the offeree. ROL: Revocation, revocation becomes effective when it is actually received by the offeree. Hypothetical #60: F: Mike makes offer to Matt and gives him two days to accept. After one day he revokes offer. I: If Matt was going to accept the offer, should Mike be required to keep offer available for the whole time? H: No, Mike can revoke the offer anytime before acceptance. ROL: Revocation, the offeror has the legal right to withdraw an offer at any time before it is accepted by the offeree. Hypothetical #61: F:Ashely makes offer and Alexandria gives $10 ti keep offer open for a week. I: Can Ashley revoke offer anytime before Alexandria accepts offer? H: No, the $10 is consideration and created a contract. ROL: Since there is a contract to keep the offer open for a week, Ashely must keep it open. Hypothetical #62:

Non-Existent Hypothetical #63: F: Offer by e-mail to professional electrician to rewire house. You dont get an acceptance. He went and bought supplies anyway and mentally accepted. I: Can you revoke offer? H: Yes, offeror has no knowledge of acceptance and the performance (buying supplies can be related to any job the electrician has. ROL: Acceptance through performance, acceptance may be evidenced by performance, the offeror must have knowledge of the performance. Hypothetical #64: F: Offer is made, then offeror dies before it can be accepted. I: Can offeree accept and require estate to comply with the agreement? H: No, death ends an offer. ROL: An offer is ended when the offeror dies. Hypothetical #65: F: Contract created for a portrait to be painted. I: Painter dies before completion, can the estate be sued? H: No, a contract for specific individual services ends with death. ROL: A contract for a specific service ends with death. No one could paint the portrait quite the same way the painter could and therefore it can not be replicated. Hypothetical #66: F: Expensive painted offered to be sold. Offer accepted, but offeror declared legally insane by Court. I: Can contract be enforced still? H: No, he is not in a reasonable state of mind and therefore cannot make rational decisions and enter into a contract. ROL: An offeror declared insane by the courts is incompetent and therefore not able to understand the offer made or the consequences of making the offer. Hypothetical #67: F: Mike offered contractor money to build addition to be used as dental office. City made it illegal to run dental business in mikes neighborhood. I: Can the contractor enforce the contract?

H: If he knew it was going to be a dental office then no, he could not. If he did not know then he could and the addition would be built, it just couldnt be used as a dental office. ROL: An offer ends if the offer itself becomes illegal before it is accepted by the offeree because a law has been passed making it illegal. Hypothetical #68: F: Mr. Stern offers to sell you his yacht. Before acceptance its destroyed. I: Can you accept the offer and enforce the contract? H: No, it is not his fault that the yacht was destroyed in the storm. It is now impossible to carry out the offer. ROL: Doctrine of impossibility, an offer ends if the offer becomes impossible to carry out before the offeree accepts it.

The Agreement Process: Acceptance

Hypothetical #69: F: Offer made, declined, accepted by another person. I: Can the other person enforce the same exact contract? H: No, the details were specific to that offer, maybe the original person was a close friend and you wanted to be nicer to them. ROL: Acceptance only by offeree, because the offer is directed only to the offere,only the offeree can accept it. If a person other than the offeree accepts the offer, the acceptance does not result in a legally bindidng agreement. Hypothetical #70: F: Reward offered to anyone who provides information to the police. You do and it leads to a conviction. I: Does your acceptance create a contract? H: For most states you have to know about the contract before you provide the information. Otherwise you will not receive the reward. ROL: Acceptance of rewards, most states have concluded that the offeree is not entitled to the reward without prior knowledge of the offer. Hypothetical #71: F: Offer employment. Acceptance must be mailed in Fedex. I: Can Mr. Jones enforce the contract if he placed the acceptance in U.S. Mail? H: No, Mr. jones did not accept the offer in the way I specified. I could have had other people lined up for the job and couldnt wait for the acceptance in regular mail.

ROL: Acceptance must be communicated, Offeror has the power to determine both the manner and medium of acceptance. Hypothetical #72: F: Offer was made, but only open for 8 days. Was sent through U.S. Mail and did not arrive till after the 8 days. Offer is accepted, but offeror refuses to comply. I: Can offeree enforce offer? H: Yes, an offer made by mail is not considered made until the offeree receives it. ROL: The receipt constitutes the communication of the offer to the offeree. Hypothetical #73: F: I made an offer to sell books through the mail. Offeree accepted by mail, but her letter was lost and never made it to me. I: Has the offer been accepted and could Amy enforce the offer? H: Yes, she sent the acceptance, which is effective upon placing it in the mailbox. ROL: Mailbox rule, an acceptance made in response to an offer is binding when placed in the mailbox, properly addressed. Hypothetical #74: F: Company offers to sell F.O.B. departure (Company not responsible after it leaves them). You accept, send purchase order, saying F.O.B. destination (Company responsible for items until delivery). I: Will this acceptance create a binding agreement? H: No, the terms must agree (mirror image rule). This is essentially a new offer. ROL: Acceptance must agree with the offer, acceptance must match what was requested in the offer. ANy change terminates the original offer, and becomes a counter offer subject to acceptance. Hypothetical #75: F: Offer made, says if there is no response after 10 days it will be considered accepted. Offeree does not respond. I: Can the contract be enforced by the Offeror by saying that the offerees silence was an acceptance? H: No, it would not be reasonable to say that silence can accept an offer. It does not create a contract. An offeree has no legal obligation to reply. ROL: Silence is never considered an acceptance unless agreed upon by both the offeror and offeree or implied acceptance Hypothetical #76:

F: Farmer always sells fruit to PJ. Not there when drops off. Leaves note with price as done in the past. Never an issue before. PJ tears note this time and fruit spoils. I: Can farmer require PJ to pay for the fruits based upon the silent acceptance? H: Yes, because of implied acceptance, they knew that they were perishable, not a gift, and they had previously accepted and paid in the past. ROL: Implied acceptance, contract based upon silent acceptance when the offeree silently accepts benefits, knowing that they are not made as a gift. Hypothetical #77: F: Offer made, offeree says if offeror doesnt hear from him, assume acceptance. Never replies, but changes mind, doesnt want to buy anymore. I: Can Offeror enforce agreement? H: Yes, if the offeror and the offeree agree, silence may be considered acceptance to form a binding contract. ROL: Implied acceptance Hypothetical #78: Not responsible for this one Hypothetical #79: F: Cox construction got bid from subcontractor, then made bid for building job. Gets job, but subcontractor refuses to honor because their bid never formally accepted. I: Can Cox enforce the contract? H: Subcontractor makes a promise which should reasonably expect would induce the contractor to submit a bid, then the promise will be enforceable if the contractor receives the job. ROL: Construction bids support a contract

The Agreement Process: Competent Parties

Hypothetical #80: F: 16 yr old signs contract, changes his mind before performing on contract. Is told he must fulfill his contract. I: Can the contract be enforced on him? H: No, he is a minor and not a competent person, can disaffirm the contract at any time. ROL: Minors may disaffirm a contract at any time for any reason Hypothetical #81:

F: 16 yr old signs yr gym membership. Uses for 3 months, makes payments. Notifies gym he is done now. I: Can gym enforce the contract? H: No, minors can disaffirm the contract at any time. And the gym must pay back the membership fee because he is a minor (if he asks for it back). ROL: If the agreement between the minor and the adult is fully or partially executed, and the minor transferred consideration the minor may still disaffirm and recover from the adult any consideration given. Hypothetical #82: F: 16 yr old buys new car. Gets into accident, takes it to ford, disaffirms contract. I: Can he disaffirm the contract? H: Yes, he can. If immaturity leads a minor to make an unwise contract, this immaturity will also cause the minor to be careless in caring for the property. ROL: The law presumes minors are immature and therefore, lack judgment and experience Hypothetical #83: F: Almost 18, bought I-pod. No return policy, three days after bday brings it back and demands money back. Store refused, says she is not a minor and cannot disaffirm. I: Does she have the right to disaffirm the contract? H: Yes, she does. After reaching 18 a person can still disaffirm contracts. ROL: Reasonable time, Minor possesses the right to disaffirm a contract form the time the contract is made and for a reasonable time after the minor reaches the age of majority. Reasonable will be determined by evaluating the facts. Hypothetical #84: F: 2 minors enter contract. I: Can either of them disaffirm the contract? H: Both can do it because they are both minors, If the minor is no longer in possession of the consideration, there is no obligation to return it ROL: Minors have right to disaffirm contract at any time Hypothetical #85: F: Minor sells bowflex to adult. Adult sells it to another adult, a good faith purchaser I: Could minor disaffirm the contract and receive the equipment back?

H: No, once the bowflex was sold to a good faith buyer, mike could no longer disaffirm the contract. He may be compensated for the money it was worth. The good faith buyer does not have to give it up because it was not his fault. ROL: If the consideration has been sold or depreciated in value, the adult must pay the minor the cash equivalent. Hypothetical #86: F: Minor buys a car from adult, uses fake id to say she is 19. She then goes back to disaffirm the contract 2 weeks later. I: Can the adult enforce the contract? H: Different state to state, but usually can disaffirm the contract ROL: Common law = a minor would still have the right to disaffirm and receive the return of the consideration Hypothetical #87: F: 15 yr old runaway, buys coat and food from Walmart. Next day tries to get money back. I: Can he disaffirm the contract? H: No he can not ROL: Minors are generally responsibly for payment for necessaries purchased from adults. Hypothetical #88: F: Minor buys watch, scratches face of it. Returns and disaffirms contract. Store sues parents. I: Can the store recover for breach of contract? H: No, because they were not aware of what their child was doing ROL: Unless the parents agree to become liable, they generally have no legal liability for contracts made by their minor children acting on their own. Parents, do however, have the legal duty to support their minor children. Hypothetical #89: F: Almost 18, buys car. Monthly payments. Makes first payment after 18. Then damages car. Returns car to dealer and asked for a refund. I: Should she be able to return the car? H: She had made a payment which means she effectively re-agreed to the contract after she was 18, so it makes the contract binding on both sides. ROL: Ratification of a minor, once ratified, agreements with a minor become legally binding on both parties and the minors privilege to disaffirm ends

Hypothetical #90: F: Almost 18, agrees to buy car from dealer. Some work had to be done, payment and delivery postponed. When car is ready, buyer (now 18), did nothing about it. I: Can the Car dealer enforce the contract? H: No, the contract was disaffirmed ROL: Executory contract, by not acting disaffirming was expressed. Hypothetical #91: F: Almost 18, buys car from dealer. Car delivered and payed for on same day. Few months after 18th bday, buyer wanted to disaffirm the contract and return car. I: Can Dealer enforce the contract? H: Yes the dealer can enforce the contract. The 18 yr old can no longer disaffirm the contract ROL: Ratification must occur i a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority. Hypothetical #92: F: Almost 18, buys tux and accessories. Few days after 18th bday tries to return just accessories. I: Can he disaffirm part of the contract? H: No, he can not disaffirm just a part of the contract ROL: A minor cannot ratify one part of a contract and disaffirm another, it must be all or nothing. Hypothetical #93: F: When drunk, Brett sold very valuable collection for $10. Matt knew he was drunk. Once sober Brett offered $10 back for collection because was mistake. Matt refused. I: Can Brett recover the collection? H: Yes, Brett would be able to disaffirm the contract because his intoxicated state made him incompetent. ROL: A person so intoxicated by drugs or alcohol that they do not realize what they are doing when they enter into an agreement can disaffirm the contract. Hypothetical #94: F: Soccer player has past injury that causes moments of confusion. During one he sells car to someone he doesnt know. Later player wants to disaffirm contract, but no longer has the money from the car sale. I: Can He disaffirm the contract?

H: No, since the other person was unaware of the injury the only way he could disaffirm is if he had the consideration to give back, but he does not. ROL: A person suffering a mental illness, but not declared legally insane by a court, create contracts that are voidable. Hypothetical #95: F: Person declared legally insane. Buys TV and smashes it after one week. After discovering the purchase and breaking Guardian demands money back. I: Should the guardian be able to do this? H: Yes, the store must return the money because she is legally insane. ROL: Disaffirming a contract by an insane person must be accompanied by the consideration unless destroyed or damaged. Hypothetical #96: F: Rebecca and Coleman enter into contact to break into someone elses house in exchange for money. Rebecca refuses to pay after it is done. I: Can Coleman sue Rebecca? H: No, it was an illegal action to break into the persons house. ROL: A contract can not entail breaking the law. If it does it can not be upheld in court. Hypothetical #97: F: Michael asks Margaret to draft his Will. Does not know that she never actually passed the Bar. She charges him $500. I: If he did not pay here would she be able to sue? H: No, because this is an illegal contract. She was not licensed to do write the Will. ROL: Licensing statues, require persons to obtain a license to practice their occupation Hypothetical #98: F: Scooter hired to shovel snow from driveway. Stephanie refuses to pay him after finding out that a license is legally required to do this. Not skill based license, just pay money to get, no qualifications. I: Can Scooter enforce the contract? H: Yes, the license is for revenue only, not skill based. He may be fined though. ROL: If a license is only for revenue then the contract is not void and must be upheld. The offender may be fined or prosecuted though. Hypothetical #99:

F: Need a loan, so you goes to a guy that is known to lend money. Agrees to loan $5,000 at 37% interest. You agree. I: Is this a valid contract? H: No, the amount of interest charged would be considered usury, or too high. ROL: Usury laws, amount of interest is higher than allowed by law. Hypothetical #100: F: Ashley agrees to paint living room for $250 to be completed by Sunday Feb 18th. I: Is this a valid contract? H: Depends on the states Blue Laws. ROL: Blue Laws, laws the govern what type of transactions can be performed on Sundays. Hypothetical #101: F: Mr. Jones, Cheltenham Tax officer, embezzled money. Mrs. Smith, town manager, finds out. Says if he pays $10,000 and quits she will not report it. He quits but does not pay. I: Can Mrs. Smith enforce the agreement? H: No, the contract is void. ROL: Agreements to interfere with the administration of justice are against public policy and will not be enforced. Hypothetical #102: F: Traffic violator bribes Judge (up for reelection) by making donation to campaign. When trial comes up, he finds her guilty. I: Should se receive a refund? H: No, a bribe is illegal. ROL: Agreements that prevent the performance of an official duty are opposed to public policy. Agreements to accept money for the performance of a legal duty is also opposed to public policy. Hypothetical #103: F: She buys computer and agrees to make 12 monthly payments. Pays 11 on time, 12th late. FIne print on contract states, computer repossessed if any payments are missed. Company repossess. I: Should the agreement or clause stand? H: No, the agreement is unconscionable.

ROL: Unconscionable agreement, a party lacks the knowledge and/or understanding of the terms of the agreement or the agreement is too unfair or harsh. Hypothetical #104: F: Take lawnmower to mechanic. Contract stats it is not liable for any mistakes made in repair. When you use it again after repair blade flies off and cuts off your foot because nut was not tightened. I: Can you sue the mechanic company? H: Yes, unconscionable, superior bargaining position, liable for negligence of repair man. ROL: Exculpatory Clause, contract clause excusing a part from liability for negligence. Generally unenforceable in court. Contract of adhesion, contract containing clauses with unfavorable terms supporting a part seen as holding a superior bargaining position. Hypothetical #105: F: Christian leased an apartment from Oak Summit. Going through hallway door, door fell on him and severely injured him. Lease states owner of Oak not liable for any injury. I: Will Oak summit be liable? H: Yes, clause was against public policy. ROL: Contract of adhesion, Oak was in superior bargaining position at time lease was signed. Had other people they could rent to. Take it or leave it. Hypothetical #106: F: Stephanie goes to Hershey Park. Signs waiver stating Park is not responsible for any injury. Had seizure on ride, which was linked to the ride. I: Can Hershey rely on the exculpatory clause? H: Yes, it can since it is an amusement park and stephanie chose to go there. ROL: Exculpatory clauses are not considered in violation of public policy when the party seeking to enforce the clause is not in a superior bargaining position because of the nature of the services it provides. Hypothetical #107: F: Jon gave Spike $25,000 to not marry his daughter. Spike used money to buy daughter an engagement ring and later married. I: Can Jon sue to recover the money? H: No, this is an illegal contract

ROL: contracts that place unreasonable restrictions or discourage marriage are not enforceable. Hypothetical #108: F: Jane sells restaurant to Jack in March. Contract states Jane will not operate another restaurant within area for 3 years. In June Jane opens a new restaurant. I: Can Jack enforce the contract? H: Yes, although three years is a bit unreasonable, the 2 months that Jane waited is too soon. ROL: Covenants not to compete, time restrictions reasonable, not exceed the time necessary for business to receive the good will of the previous customers. Hypothetical #109: F: Oral contract, Mike rent Ilyas house for 2 years, and also at the end of the 2 years he will buy. I: Are these agreements valid? H: No, both agreements need to be in writing because a contract which can only be performed beyond one year need to be in writing and the sale of land needs to be in writing. ROL: Statute of Frauds, doctrine requiring certain contracts to be in writing. Hypothetical #110: F: Rebecca enters into contract with Billy to cut her lawn for $25. He does and she pays him. I: What is the status of this contract? H: The contract is discharged by full performance. ROL: Termination of Contracts, full performance. Hypothetical #111: F: Contract with Cox construction to build shed. Forgot to build shelves inside as requested. I: Can you sue for breach of contract and a full refund? H: No, the work was substantially performed, all work was finished except for minor details. ROL: Substantial performance, performance in good faith of all major terms of the contract, but failure to complete minor details. Hypothetical #112: F: Ashely borrows money from Gus and makes monthly payments. Begins to default on payments. Gus accepts Ashelys car in exchange for debt.

I: What just occurred? H: An accord and satisfaction ROL: Accord, an agreement by one party to accept performance of contract that is different form the original performance agreed. Satisfaction, the performance of the accord made by the other party. Hypothetical #113: F: Joe says paint bedroom by Feb 2nd, finished by 4th. I: Does this amount to a breach? H: No, a breach of contract must be a material breach. ROL: Material breach, a violation of contract so substantial that it destroys the value of the contract Hypothetical #114: F: Joe agrees to resurface floors in Inn by Feb 1st, finishes Feb 4th. Mary Jane had wedding reception scheduled for Feb 3rd. I: Can Mary Jane sue Joe for not having the floors complete and ruining her wedding reception? H: No, Mary Jane must have privity with the defendant. Could sue the Inn who in turn would sue Joe. ROL: Privity is a direct relationship with the defendant such that the defendant maintains an obligation to the plaintiff. Hypothetical #115: F: Based on Joes breach, Inn lost $50,000 would have received from Mary Jane. I: What should the Inn receive in damages for the breach? H: Compensatory Damages ROL: Compensatory Damages, damages awarded to plaintiff to compensate plaintiff for their actual loss of injury occurred. Hypothetical #116: F: Jon rents apartment, lease states if lease is broken tenant will forfeit security deposit as liquidated damages. I: Would this be enforceable? H: Yes, this is a liquidated damages clause. ROL: Liquidated damages clause, the damage amount that the parties agreed to in the even of a breach. Hypothetical #117:

F: Contract in Feb to do photography of wedding. Contract stated it took about 6 months production of album after proofs were chosen. Wedding in June. Bride returned selected proofs in August. Got album in September. I: Can She sue for breach of contract? H: Yes nominal damages, because of the excess time. ROL: There was no material breach, so nominal damages would be awarded. Hypothetical #118: F: Margaret contracted with Derek to build patio for $3,500. Paid him deposit, $1,750. Work to be completed by november. Derek did everything but pour concrete. Winter came so could not pour, both agreed to hold off job till spring. In spring Derek never finished because too busy. Margaret had to hire another person charging $4,600 to pour. I: What damages should she receive from Derek? H: Compensatory damages of $2,850. ROL: F: Offer made, says if there is no response after 10 days it will be considered accepted. Offeree does not respond. I: Can the contract be enforced by the Offeror by saying that the offerees silence was an acceptance? H: No, it would not be reasonable to say that silence can accept an offer. It does not create a contract. An offeree has no legal obligation to reply. ROL: Silence is never considered an acceptance unless agreed upon by both the offeror and offeree or implied acceptance Hypothetical #76: F: Farmer always sells fruit to PJ. Not there when drops off. Leaves note with price as done in the past. Never an issue before. PJ tears note this time and fruit spoils. I: Can farmer require PJ to pay for the fruits based upon the silent acceptance? H: Yes, because of implied acceptance, they knew that they were perishable, not a gift, and they had previously accepted and paid in the past. ROL: Implied acceptance, contract based upon silent acceptance when the offeree silently accepts benefits, knowing that they are not made as a gift. Hypothetical #77: F: Offer made, offeree says if offeror doesnt hear from him, assume acceptance. Never replies, but changes mind, doesnt want to buy anymore.

I: Can Offeror enforce agreement? H: Yes, if the offeror and the offeree agree, silence may be considered acceptance to form a binding contract. ROL: Implied acceptance Hypothetical #78: Not responsible for this one Hypothetical #79: F: Cox construction got bid from subcontractor, then made bid for building job. Gets job, but subcontractor refuses to honor because their bid never formally accepted. I: Can Cox enforce the contract? H: Subcontractor makes a promise which should reasonably expect would induce the contractor to submit a bid, then the promise will be enforceable if the contractor receives the job. ROL: Construction bids support a contract

The Agreement Process: Competent Parties

Hypothetical #80: F: 16 yr old signs contract, changes his mind before performing on contract. Is told he must fulfill his contract. I: Can the contract be enforced on him? H: No, he is a minor and not a competent person, can disaffirm the contract at any time. ROL: Minors may disaffirm a contract at any time for any reason Hypothetical #81: F: 16 yr old signs yr gym membership. Uses for 3 months, makes payments. Notifies gym he is done now. I: Can gym enforce the contract? H: No, minors can disaffirm the contract at any time. And the gym must pay back the membership fee because he is a minor (if he asks for it back). ROL: If the agreement between the minor and the adult is fully or partially executed, and the minor transferred consideration the minor may still disaffirm and recover from the adult any consideration given. Hypothetical #82: F: 16 yr old buys new car. Gets into accident, takes it to ford, disaffirms contract. I: Can he disaffirm the contract?

H: Yes, he can. If immaturity leads a minor to make an unwise contract, this immaturity will also cause the minor to be careless in caring for the property. ROL: The law presumes minors are immature and therefore, lack judgment and experience Hypothetical #83: F: Almost 18, bought I-pod. No return policy, three days after bday brings it back and demands money back. Store refused, says she is not a minor and cannot disaffirm. I: Does she have the right to disaffirm the contract? H: Yes, she does. After reaching 18 a person can still disaffirm contracts. ROL: Reasonable time, Minor possesses the right to disaffirm a contract form the time the contract is made and for a reasonable time after the minor reaches the age of majority. Reasonable will be determined by evaluating the facts. Hypothetical #84: F: 2 minors enter contract. I: Can either of them disaffirm the contract? H: Both can do it because they are both minors, If the minor is no longer in possession of the consideration, there is no obligation to return it ROL: Minors have right to disaffirm contract at any time Hypothetical #85: F: Minor sells bowflex to adult. Adult sells it to another adult, a good faith purchaser I: Could minor disaffirm the contract and receive the equipment back? H: No, once the bowflex was sold to a good faith buyer, mike could no longer disaffirm the contract. He may be compensated for the money it was worth. The good faith buyer does not have to give it up because it was not his fault. ROL: If the consideration has been sold or depreciated in value, the adult must pay the minor the cash equivalent. Hypothetical #86: F: Minor buys a car from adult, uses fake id to say she is 19. She then goes back to disaffirm the contract 2 weeks later. I: Can the adult enforce the contract? H: Different state to state, but usually can disaffirm the contract ROL: Common law = a minor would still have the right to disaffirm and receive the return of the consideration

Hypothetical #87: F: 15 yr old runaway, buys coat and food from Walmart. Next day tries to get money back. I: Can he disaffirm the contract? H: No he can not ROL: Minors are generally responsibly for payment for necessaries purchased from adults. Hypothetical #88: F: Minor buys watch, scratches face of it. Returns and disaffirms contract. Store sues parents. I: Can the store recover for breach of contract? H: No, because they were not aware of what their child was doing ROL: Unless the parents agree to become liable, they generally have no legal liability for contracts made by their minor children acting on their own. Parents, do however, have the legal duty to support their minor children. Hypothetical #89: F: Almost 18, buys car. Monthly payments. Makes first payment after 18. Then damages car. Returns car to dealer and asked for a refund. I: Should she be able to return the car? H: She had made a payment which means she effectively re-agreed to the contract after she was 18, so it makes the contract binding on both sides. ROL: Ratification of a minor, once ratified, agreements with a minor become legally binding on both parties and the minors privilege to disaffirm ends Hypothetical #90: F: Almost 18, agrees to buy car from dealer. Some work had to be done, payment and delivery postponed. When car is ready, buyer (now 18), did nothing about it. I: Can the Car dealer enforce the contract? H: No, the contract was disaffirmed ROL: Executory contract, by not acting disaffirming was expressed. Hypothetical #91: F: Almost 18, buys car from dealer. Car delivered and payed for on same day. Few months after 18th bday, buyer wanted to disaffirm the contract and return car. I: Can Dealer enforce the contract? H: Yes the dealer can enforce the contract. The 18 yr old can no longer disaffirm the contract

ROL: Ratification must occur i a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority. Hypothetical #92: F: Almost 18, buys tux and accessories. Few days after 18th bday tries to return just accessories. I: Can he disaffirm part of the contract? H: No, he can not disaffirm just a part of the contract ROL: A minor cannot ratify one part of a contract and disaffirm another, it must be all or nothing. Hypothetical #93: F: When drunk, Brett sold very valuable collection for $10. Matt knew he was drunk. Once sober Brett offered $10 back for collection because was mistake. Matt refused. I: Can Brett recover the collection? H: Yes, Brett would be able to disaffirm the contract because his intoxicated state made him incompetent. ROL: A person so intoxicated by drugs or alcohol that they do not realize what they are doing when they enter into an agreement can disaffirm the contract. Hypothetical #94: F: Soccer player has past injury that causes moments of confusion. During one he sells car to someone he doesnt know. Later player wants to disaffirm contract, but no longer has the money from the car sale. I: Can He disaffirm the contract? H: No, since the other person was unaware of the injury the only way he could disaffirm is if he had the consideration to give back, but he does not. ROL: A person suffering a mental illness, but not declared legally insane by a court, create contracts that are voidable. Hypothetical #95: F: Person declared legally insane. Buys TV and smashes it after one week. After discovering the purchase and breaking Guardian demands money back. I: Should the guardian be able to do this? H: Yes, the store must return the money because she is legally insane. ROL: Disaffirming a contract by an insane person must be accompanied by the consideration unless destroyed or damaged. Hypothetical #96:

F: Rebecca and Coleman enter into contact to break into someone elses house in exchange for money. Rebecca refuses to pay after it is done. I: Can Coleman sue Rebecca? H: No, it was an illegal action to break into the persons house. ROL: A contract can not entail breaking the law. If it does it can not be upheld in court. Hypothetical #97: F: Michael asks Margaret to draft his Will. Does not know that she never actually passed the Bar. She charges him $500. I: If he did not pay here would she be able to sue? H: No, because this is an illegal contract. She was not licensed to do write the Will. ROL: Licensing statues, require persons to obtain a license to practice their occupation Hypothetical #98: F: Scooter hired to shovel snow from driveway. Stephanie refuses to pay him after finding out that a license is legally required to do this. Not skill based license, just pay money to get, no qualifications. I: Can Scooter enforce the contract? H: Yes, the license is for revenue only, not skill based. He may be fined though. ROL: If a license is only for revenue then the contract is not void and must be upheld. The offender may be fined or prosecuted though. Hypothetical #99: F: Need a loan, so you goes to a guy that is known to lend money. Agrees to loan $5,000 at 37% interest. You agree. I: Is this a valid contract? H: No, the amount of interest charged would be considered usury, or too high. ROL: Usury laws, amount of interest is higher than allowed by law. Hypothetical #100: F: Ashley agrees to paint living room for $250 to be completed by Sunday Feb 18th. I: Is this a valid contract? H: Depends on the states Blue Laws. ROL: Blue Laws, laws the govern what type of transactions can be performed on Sundays.

Hypothetical #101: F: Mr. Jones, Cheltenham Tax officer, embezzled money. Mrs. Smith, town manager, finds out. Says if he pays $10,000 and quits she will not report it. He quits but does not pay. I: Can Mrs. Smith enforce the agreement? H: No, the contract is void. ROL: Agreements to interfere with the administration of justice are against public policy and will not be enforced. Hypothetical #102: F: Traffic violator bribes Judge (up for reelection) by making donation to campaign. When trial comes up, he finds her guilty. I: Should se receive a refund? H: No, a bribe is illegal. ROL: Agreements that prevent the performance of an official duty are opposed to public policy. Agreements to accept money for the performance of a legal duty is also opposed to public policy. Hypothetical #103: F: She buys computer and agrees to make 12 monthly payments. Pays 11 on time, 12th late. FIne print on contract states, computer repossessed if any payments are missed. Company repossess. I: Should the agreement or clause stand? H: No, the agreement is unconscionable. ROL: Unconscionable agreement, a party lacks the knowledge and/or understanding of the terms of the agreement or the agreement is too unfair or harsh. Hypothetical #104: F: Take lawnmower to mechanic. Contract stats it is not liable for any mistakes made in repair. When you use it again after repair blade flies off and cuts off your foot because nut was not tightened. I: Can you sue the mechanic company? H: Yes, unconscionable, superior bargaining position, liable for negligence of repair man. ROL: Exculpatory Clause, contract clause excusing a part from liability for negligence. Generally unenforceable in court. Contract of adhesion, contract containing clauses with unfavorable terms supporting a part seen as holding a superior bargaining position.

Hypothetical #105: F: Christian leased an apartment from Oak Summit. Going through hallway door, door fell on him and severely injured him. Lease states owner of Oak not liable for any injury. I: Will Oak summit be liable? H: Yes, clause was against public policy. ROL: Contract of adhesion, Oak was in superior bargaining position at time lease was signed. Had other people they could rent to. Take it or leave it. Hypothetical #106: F: Stephanie goes to Hershey Park. Signs waiver stating Park is not responsible for any injury. Had seizure on ride, which was linked to the ride. I: Can Hershey rely on the exculpatory clause? H: Yes, it can since it is an amusement park and stephanie chose to go there. ROL: Exculpatory clauses are not considered in violation of public policy when the party seeking to enforce the clause is not in a superior bargaining position because of the nature of the services it provides. Hypothetical #107: F: Jon gave Spike $25,000 to not marry his daughter. Spike used money to buy daughter an engagement ring and later married. I: Can Jon sue to recover the money? H: No, this is an illegal contract ROL: contracts that place unreasonable restrictions or discourage marriage are not enforceable. Hypothetical #108: F: Jane sells restaurant to Jack in March. Contract states Jane will not operate another restaurant within area for 3 years. In June Jane opens a new restaurant. I: Can Jack enforce the contract? H: Yes, although three years is a bit unreasonable, the 2 months that Jane waited is too soon. ROL: Covenants not to compete, time restrictions reasonable, not exceed the time necessary for business to receive the good will of the previous customers. Hypothetical #109: F: Oral contract, Mike rent Ilyas house for 2 years, and also at the end of the 2 years he will buy. I: Are these agreements valid?

H: No, both agreements need to be in writing because a contract which can only be performed beyond one year need to be in writing and the sale of land needs to be in writing. ROL: Statute of Frauds, doctrine requiring certain contracts to be in writing. Hypothetical #110: F: Rebecca enters into contract with Billy to cut her lawn for $25. He does and she pays him. I: What is the status of this contract? H: The contract is discharged by full performance. ROL: Termination of Contracts, full performance. Hypothetical #111: F: Contract with Cox construction to build shed. Forgot to build shelves inside as requested. I: Can you sue for breach of contract and a full refund? H: No, the work was substantially performed, all work was finished except for minor details. ROL: Substantial performance, performance in good faith of all major terms of the contract, but failure to complete minor details. Hypothetical #112: F: Ashely borrows money from Gus and makes monthly payments. Begins to default on payments. Gus accepts Ashelys car in exchange for debt. I: What just occurred? H: An accord and satisfaction ROL: Accord, an agreement by one party to accept performance of contract that is different form the original performance agreed. Satisfaction, the performance of the accord made by the other party. Hypothetical #113: F: Joe says paint bedroom by Feb 2nd, finished by 4th. I: Does this amount to a breach? H: No, a breach of contract must be a material breach. ROL: Material breach, a violation of contract so substantial that it destroys the value of the contract Hypothetical #114: F: Joe agrees to resurface floors in Inn by Feb 1st, finishes Feb 4th. Mary Jane had wedding reception scheduled for Feb 3rd.

I: Can Mary Jane sue Joe for not having the floors complete and ruining her wedding reception? H: No, Mary Jane must have privity with the defendant. Could sue the Inn who in turn would sue Joe. ROL: Privity is a direct relationship with the defendant such that the defendant maintains an obligation to the plaintiff. Hypothetical #115: F: Based on Joes breach, Inn lost $50,000 would have received from Mary Jane. I: What should the Inn receive in damages for the breach? H: Compensatory Damages ROL: Compensatory Damages, damages awarded to plaintiff to compensate plaintiff for their actual loss of injury occurred. Hypothetical #116: F: Jon rents apartment, lease states if lease is broken tenant will forfeit security deposit as liquidated damages. I: Would this be enforceable? H: Yes, this is a liquidated damages clause. ROL: Liquidated damages clause, the damage amount that the parties agreed to in the even of a breach. Hypothetical #117: F: Contract in Feb to do photography of wedding. Contract stated it took about 6 months production of album after proofs were chosen. Wedding in June. Bride returned selected proofs in August. Got album in September. I: Can She sue for breach of contract? H: No, contract stated it took 6 months after the proofs were chosen. ROL: Contract law, there was no breach in contract. Hypothetical #118: F: Margaret contracted with Derek to build patio for $3,500. Paid him deposit. Work to be completed by november. Derek did everything but pour concrete. Winter came so could not pour, both agreed to hold off job till spring. In spring Derek never finished because too busy. Margaret had to hire another person charging $4,600 to pour. I: What damages should she receive from Derek? H: Compensatory damages and punitive damages because she deserves to be compensated, but also had to wait a long time because of him.

ROL: Punitive damages, will allow punitive damages in contract cases when the plaintiff shows defendant also committed a tort by maliciously, fraudulently, or willfully causing a breach. Hypothetical #119: F: Brianna sells Bonnie car for $19,000. I: If Bonnie breaches the contract, what would Briannas damages be? H: Sale price - contract price = compensatory damages I: If Brianna breached contract, what would Bonnies damages be? H: Market price - contract price = compensatory damages ROL: Must mitigate your damages. Hypothetical #120: F: Tiger Woods in $10,000,000 exclusive endorsement contract with Buick. Tiger does pro-bono commercial for summer olympics. I: What would Buick do? H: Go to Court to get an injunction to stop commercial and Tiger from doing anything else. ROL: Breach of contract Hypothetical #121: F: Couple buying new house. Seller says there is no rodent or pest infestation even though she knew that at night tons of roaches came out. Couple agrees to buy the house based on her lie. When they find out truth refuse to settle on the house. Can the seller sue to enforce the contract? I: Should the buyers be held liable for the contract agreement? H: No, because it is an avoidable contract. It will be up to the buyer to go through with the contract or not. ROL: Fraudulent inducement/misrepresentation, a false statement or concealment of a material fact, must be intentional, victim actually relied on the false statement, victim must show proof of damages. Hypothetical #122: F: Valentine sold Ilya 1960 car. Only 10,000 miles on it. Valentine says his dad never drove it. Buys it, takes to mechanic, tells Ilya speedometer was set back 90,000. I: Can Ilya sue Valentine for breach of contract? H: Yes, because Valentine lied to him.

ROL:Fraudulent inducement/misrepresentation, a falst statement of concealment of a material fact, must be intentional, victim actually relied on the false statement, victim must show proof of damages. Hypothetical #123: F: Developer wants to buy land, owner says no. Developer stalks family, gets him fired, ruins life of owner in general. Later goes back and says he will get his life back if he sells the land. I: Is this going to be a valid contract? H: No, it is not voluntary and therefore will not stand up in court. ROL: Duress, forcing one party to enter into a contract by using violence, threats of violence, or other pressures. Hypothetical #124: F: Mrs. Paul sells farm to her son for $50,000 because he guilted her into it. She later finds out that he plans on selling land to developer for $5,000,000 and putting her in an assisted living place. I: Is this a valid contract? H: No, because of the relationship between them she was guilted into the contract. ROL: Undue Influence, the power that one person has and uses of personal advantage over another person. Hypothetical #125: F: By mail, Linda offers to sell law books for $295. Sally sends acceptance right away. Linda realizes she put $295 instead of $395. Will not send books. I: Can sally enforce the contract? H: She would still be required to send the books ROL: Unilateral mistake, a mistake made regarding the terms of contract made by one party. Usually the contract is still upheld. Hypothetical #126: F: Buyers want to buy house in Wyncote, been looking for a yr. Mrs. Stern offers by mail to sell her fantastic house for $60,000. When she receives check, startled because she meant $600,000. I: Can Mrs. Stern Void the contract. H: Yes

ROL: Unilateral Mistake, a mistake made regarding the terms of contract made by one party. Exception, the contract would be voidable if the non-mistaken party knows or reasonable should have known of the mistake because the mistake was substantial or if the mistake was caused by the non-mistaken party. Hypothetical #127: F: Contracted with Liberty travel to vacation to hotel in Jamaica. Neither of you knew government had closed hotel. I: What is the state of the contract? H: voided, both parties made a mistake ROL: Mutual Mistake about the existence of the subject matter (Hotel) Hypothetical #128: F: Bought trip from Liberty for a disney vacation. Found out vacation was to Disneyland CA not Disneyworld FL. No where in the ad did it distinguish which place you were going. I: Can you rescind the contract? H: Yes, there was no meeting of the minds ROL: Mutual Mistake, about the identity of the subject matter, if both parties are mistaken about the basis of the contract, there can be no meeting of the minds and therefor no contract. Hypothetical #129: F: Stop at hotel on a road trip I: Is the contract you enter into for the hotel room a contract governed by the UCC? H: No, it has nothing to do with the sale of goods, just traditional contract law. ROL: UCC only deals with the sale of goods, which are considered items that are tangible and moveable. Hypothetical #130A: F: Get pacemaker installed. I: Is the contract with the hospital governed by the UCC H: No, because the primary purpose of the contract was service (the surgery) ROL: UCC only deals with goods, not services (surgery) Hypothetical #130B: F: 5 yr old kid at elderly neighbors house. Pulls out chair from underneath her. I: Would his act be intentional?

H: Yes, he knew that she was going to fall after he pulled the chair out from under her. ROL: Intent rule, where a reasonable man would believe that particular result was substantially certain to follow, he will be held in the eyes of the law as though he had intended it. Hypothetical #131: F: before Woman came back into backyard, kid had moved chair and sat in it. Tried to move chair back to place to save woman when he saw she was sitting down in empty air. Did not get there soon enough. I: Is his act intentional? H: No, he did not know that moving the chair would cause her harm ROL: Intentional torts, the actor must intend for the consequences of his act to take place, of have substantial certainty that they would result from the act. Hypothetical #132: F: Prof. Jones teasing Dr. Halpin. Put his arm around her and pulled her head toward him cause he knows she is shy. She was paralyzed in the left side of her face. I: Is the act intentional? H: No, reasonable man in this defendants position would not believe that this bizarre act would occur. ROL: Intentional torts, substantial certainty Hypothetical #133: F:In defendants house, defendant came up behind plaintiff hugged her and tried forcefully kissed her. She resisted it and struggled. She struck her face upon an object she couldnt identify. I: Is the act intentional: H: Yes, reasonable man would have known that this was assault and battery ROL: Intentional tort, substantial certainty that his actions would lead to this outcome. Hypothetical #134: F: Mike hunting wolves, shot Ashelys dog that looked like wolf, believed it was wolf and killed it. I: Is this intentional? H: Yes, he intended to kill the animal, he just had the wrong animal. ROL: Intentional tort, mistake of ID does not excuse intent

Hypothetical #135: F: Plaintiff is a nurse, taking care of legally insane person (defendant) 24/7. Defendant has violent outbreak. Tells no one to enter the room or she would kill them. Plaintiff goes into room to remove broken furniture. Gets struck in head and has serious injury. I: Is this act intentional? H: Yes, he threatened them, told them what she was going to do. She knew what would happen if she hit the plaintiff with the broken furniture. ROL: Intentional tort, where an insane person by his act does intentional damage to the person or property of another, he is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a normal person would be liable. Hypothetical #136: F: Boys in Jeffs shed. Two of three getting down, last one is not. Throws stick at him, but misses and blinds one of the ones getting down. I: If he did not intend to hit the last boy, but just to scare him, is it still an intentional tort? H: Yes, a reasonable person would be substantially certain that consequences would follow. ROL: Transferred intent, if a party intends to hit someone and inflict unwarranted injury upon someone, the fact that injury resulted on another does not negate intent. Hypothetical #137: F: Plaintiff at professional conference at defendants lodge. Plaintiff standing in line, defendants employee snatches plate and says he refuses to serve Negroes. Not hurt, just really embarrassed. I: Do we have either assault or battery? H: Yes, assault and battery applies to things physically touching the plaintiff ROL: To constitute an assault and batter, it is not necessary to touch the plaintiffs body or even his clothing; knocking or snatching anything from the plaintiffs hand or touching anything connected with his person, when done in an offensive manner is sufficient. Hypothetical #138: F: Amy brings clock to clock fixer, he cant reach all the way across the counter. Can not reach her in any way. He tells her, if you will come back here and let me love and pet you, I will fix your clock. Reached for her, but couldnt reach.

I: Assault or battery? H: No, battery because there was no touching and the threat could not really be carried out because he could not cross the counter, so no assault ROL: To constitute an assault, there must be a well-founded fear of an imminent batter, coupled with the apparent present ability to carryout the attempt, if not prevented. Hypothetical #139: F: Liz admits herself to nursing home. Admission papers state no mental problems. Also say shell not be forced to stay if she doesnt want to. Placed into insane wing, wants to leave, wont let her. Tries to escape multiple times, caught and restrained. Finally gets out. I: Can Liz sue based upon an intentional tort? H:Yes, restrained against will ROL: False imprisonment, the direct restraint of one person of the physical liberty of another without adequate legal justification. Hypothetical #140: F: Drunk people, cops take to city limit and let go in golf course to calm down. Soon one of them wanders and gets hit by car. Can not remember anything of that night. I: Can plaintiff sue for false imprisonment? H: No, he can not remember the confinement ROL: There can be no liability for false imprisonment unless the person is aware of the confinement or is harmed by it. Hypothetical #141: F: Plaintiff seeks damages for mental/emotional/physical affects of store clerk who verbally attacked her with very vulgar language. I: Can she recover for her alleged tort? H:Yes, because the emotional distress was caused ROL: Intentional infliction of emotional distress, conduct must be intentional, must be extreme and outrageous, must be casual connection between the conduct and the emotional distress, emotional distress must be severe. Hypothetical #142: F: Ilya, resident alien, girlfriend hires PI to see if hes cheating. Going to postoffice. PI says he is immigration officer and if he doesnt give letters then hell be charged for espionage.

I: Would this constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress? H: Yes, there were even physical repercussions of the distress ROL: Intentional infliction of emotional distress Hypothetical #143: F: Brianna opened American Express card. Charges trip to Europe. Could not make monthly payments. Debt collectors contact and tell her that failure to pay debt will ruin credit for life. Stressed her out, causes serious mental distress. I: Can American Express be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress? H: No, reasonable attempts to collect debt ROL: Although it may lead to and expected to lead to mental distress, will not lead to liability Hypothetical #144: F: Defendant, a creditor, called Brianna and said, this is going to be a shock... Then simply asked why she didnt pay her bill. Brianna had nervous shock and serious illness due to it. I: Will the creditor be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress? H: Yes, he did not need to do it like this. ROL: Intentional infliction of emotional distress, he intended to scare Brianna. Hypothetical #145: F: Brett and Richard in Florida. Brett used local bookie to bet on some sports. Lost picks, owed bookie $. Couldnt pay, bookie comes to hotel and beats up Brett. Richard hiding and saw it all. Richard suffered emotional distressed. I: Can Richard sue the bookie for intentional infliction of emotional distress? H: No, they did not know he was in the bathroom. If they knew and were beating Brett to get at Richard, then yes. ROL: A party cannot recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress unless the defendants knew that severe emotional distress was substantially certain to be produced. Hypothetical #146: F: Woman immigrating to U.S. in line for vaccination, tells doctor already vaccinated, he says nothing, holds out arm to get shot, but given certifying ticket before shot, used it to get through island quickly. I: Can the woman sue for assault and battery? H: No, because she consented

ROL: If the injured partys behavior was such as to indicate consent on her part, then the other party is justified in their actions. Hypothetical #147: F: U.S. vs Russia in olympic hockey, U.S. player breaks rules and hits Russian player. I: Did the Russian Hockey player consent to the dangers of Hockey. H: Yes, but since this was against the Hockey code rules it was outside the scope of fair play. ROL: When the rules of a game or general customs do not permit such contact, then a defendant cannot use consent as a defense even though the overall activity is dangerous. Hypothetical #148: F: Plaintiff goes to surgery for her right ear. Surgeon finds problem in left while plaintiff is under anesthetic. Decides to do that without consent. I: Can the doctor be held liable for an intentional tort? H: No, he cannot. ROL: If in the course of an operation to which the patient consented, the physician should discover conditions not anticipated before the operation commenced , and which if not removed, would endanger the life or health of the patient, he would, though no express consent was obtained or given, be justified in extending the operation to remove or overcome them. Hypothetical #149: F: Mike and Brett get into fight, no one starts the fight. Brett hits and kills Mike. Brett argues Mike consented to the fight. I: Will Bretts defense be successful? H: No, he will be held liable ROL: Where the parties engage in mutual combat in anger, each is civilly liable to the other for any physical injury inflicted by him during the fight. The voluntary nature of the fight is no defense. Hypothetical #150: F: Jon and Valentine in professional fighting. Illegal in PA. Fight purely professional, no anger. Jon dies. I: Can Valentine use a defense of consent? H: No, the fight was illegal

ROL: One who engages in a boxing, even though prohibited by positive law, and sustains an injury, should not have a right to recover and damages that he ay sustain as the result of the combat, which he expressly consented to and engaged in as a matter of business sport. Hypothetical #151: Comparison between two hypotheticals. 1: 15 yr old girl consents to have sex with a 50 yr old man in a state where it is illegal for men of that age to have sex with girls that young. 2: Adult, unmarried woman, consents to sex with another adult despite state having a law against unmarried women having sex. A growing number of states will nullify a plaintiffs consent if the defendants conduct violated a criminal stature designed to protect a class of persons to which plaintiff belongs. Hypothetical #152: F: People owns abandoned house. Often used for drinking by high schoolers. Put gun trap up in door. Kids injured when they break in. I: Can house owners use the privilege of defense of property to excuse their actions. H: No, there is no privilege here. ROL: An owner of premises is prohibited from willfully or intentionally injuring a trespasser by means of force that either takes life or inflicts great bodily injury. Hypothetical #153: F: Plaintiff buys stove on credit. Obtained credit fraudulently. Store finds out, pulls him over driving back from store. Plaintiff resisted, drew knife, store help him down and took back stove. I: Should the store employees be held liable for assault and battery? H: Yes, they should not have pursued it after plaintiff became violent ROL: Right to recover property, fraudulently obtained, if it could be done without unnecessary violence to the person, or without breach of the peace. Hypothetical #154: F: Brianna shopping, protection officer saw her put items in her purse. Lost sight of her for a while. While he did so she bought everything. Officer made her empty out her purse, but sees sales receipt. She sues the store for false imprisonment? I: Should the story be held liable? H: no, shopkeepers privilege

ROL: A shopkeeper may detain for a reasonable investigation a person whom he reasonable believes to have taken property (chattel) unlawfully. Hypothetical #155: F: MIke owns big house. Major fire breaks out on street. Entire block destroyed, neighbors blow up mikes house to stop fire and save other houses. Mike sues them for intentional damage to his property. I: Did the neighbors possess a privilege to excuse their conduct? H: Yes, they did possess a privilege. ROL: The right to destroy property to prevent the spread of fire has been traced to the highest law of necessity, and natural rights of man, independent of society or civil government. Hypothetical #156: F: Cruise ship captain wants to keep ship docked to save ship from sudden strong storm. Large waves makes ship bang against dock. At end of storm, dock is destroyed, but ship saved. Dock owner sued. I: Ship owner claims the doctrine of necessity will be successful? H: No, the dock was not going to hurt the ship at all. Dock owner should be compensated. ROL: this is not a case where life or property was menaced by any object or this belonging to plaintiff, the destruction of which is necessary to prevent disaster. Hypothetical #157: F: John leaves golf club laying in back yard for a long time. 9 yr old son picks up and swings, hitting plaintiff in the jaw. Plaintiff sues John for negligence b/c he should have known a kid would try to play with it. I: Should John be held negligent? H: No, a golf club laying around does is not an obvious danger to anyone ROL: A reasonable person would know that this was not an ordinary consequence of leaving a golf club in the yard. Hypothetical #158: F: Defendant installed water mains in street. One fire hydrant burst due to frost and damaged plaintiffs house. Apparatus laid down 25 years ago, worked well in that time. Frost was deeper than any other ever experienced in area. I: Should the defendant be found negligent? H: No, when it was laid down it was in working order and he had not idea that in 25 years this frost would occur.

ROL: Notice, the facts and circumstances at the time did not give any notice to the unnatural frost that would occur. Hypothetical #159: F: 4 yr old child playing on railroad turntable. Turntable has moveable bolt that is supposed to be held in place with a padlock according to company policy, but this rule was never followed. Childs friends set turntable in motion, cut off his foot. I: Should the defendant be found negligent? H: Yes, they knew the rule was not followed. ROL: Notice, they had notice that the lock was not secured, they could have taken measures to avoid this accident. Hypothetical #160: F: You are builder of new housing development. Building water runoff basins. Will be 15-20 ft deep when full. I: Describe conduct regarding basins H: Place fence around, protective measures ROL: Notice, I know the dangers of these basins and must take appropriate actions to avoid them Hypothetical #161: F: You own a vacant lot, mine shaft there. Frequented by children. I: What a reasonable propertys owner duty be? H: fill it in with concrete ROL: Would become an attractive nuisance Hypothetical #162: F: 1926, plaintiffs drove car through railing. Suffered due to fall. I: Should the government be held liable for damages? H: No, municipalities cant be expected to do this ROL: Can;t be expected to protect long stretches of roads with guard rails to protect against car crashes. Interest in finding and building roads is too great than to wait until you place guard rails. Hypothetical #163: F: own 5 yr old car, never done anything with tires. While driving they blow out causing major accident. I: Do you owe a duty to the other drivers?

H: Yes, law requires drivers and owners of motor vehicles to know the condition of those parts which are likely to become dangerous where the flaws or faults would be disclosed by a reasonable inspection. ROL: Notice, must know the condition of the car, so has knowledge of dangerous conditions Hypothetical #164: F: Blind, 80 yr old, post office worker (for 20 yrs) bumps into plaintiff who falls and breaks hip. Did not use cane. I: Did he breach his duty? H: Would depend on whether blind people usually use their canes in familiar areas or not. Whatever the majority is. ROL: Reasonable majority Hypothetical #165: F: Few 8 yr old boys playing in pool. One gets pushed and hits head. I: Did the pushing boy breach his duty of care? H: No, because he is 8 years old ROL: The care or caution required is according to the capacity of the child, and this is to be determined, ordinarily, by the age of the child. Hypothetical #166: F: 13 yr old giving friend ride on snowmobile, gets in crash, hurts friend. I: What standard of care do we use or what duty do we impose? H: He is treated as an adult ROL: When the activity of a child engages in is inherently dangerous, as is the operation of powerful mechanized vehicle, the child should be held to an adult standard of care.