Contract Law (English & US) PDF

# Doctrine of Consideration ## English Law - Implicit consideration is accepted as a valid one. ## US Law - Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (stilista, profitti solo se lavorava) - Gray v. Martino (poliziotto, gioielli, duty as a policeman) - Lingenfelder v. Wainwright Brewery Co. (tizio che non l...

# Doctrine of Consideration ## English Law - Implicit consideration is accepted as a valid one. ## US Law - Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (stilista, profitti solo se lavorava) - Gray v. Martino (poliziotto, gioielli, duty as a policeman) - Lingenfelder v. Wainwright Brewery Co. (tizio che non lavora, 5% in più) ## Past Consideration It's not valid for the creation of a new contract. # Promissory Estoppel ## English Law - It's used as a shield (defence), not as a sword (attack) - Combe v. Combe (moglie che fa causa al marito, no promissory) - Central London Property Trust Limited v. High Trees House Limited (appartamenti, guerra) ## US Law - It's used as a shield (defence) and as a sword (attack) - Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. (panettiere che fa cose per avere un contratto) # Offer and Acceptance ## English Law - **Mailbox rule**: offer by mail is accepted when the letter of acceptance was posted by the offeree. - Adams v. Lindsell (mail spedita alla via sbagliata) - Dickinson v. Dodds (offerta revocata, rin corsa verso il treno) ## US Law - Akers v. J.B. Sedberry, Inc. (offerta del datore di lavoro) (offerta rifiutata non può essere riaperta) ## Revocation of an offer It can be made in every moment before acceptance. # Pre-Contractual Liability ## English Law - **Negotiation in good faith is not a duty** - Walford v. Miles (entrambi promettono di non negoziare con altri ma poi no.) - William Lacey, Ltd v. Davis (fa cose senza contratto e benefici defendant) - **Quantum Meruit** ## US Law - **Negotiation in good faith is not a duty** - Channel Home Centers v. Grossman (letter of intent that allows for bindingness) - **Quantum Meruit** - United States v. Algernon Blair, Inc. (restitutionary damages, naval hospital, 28% contract completed) # Fairness and Unconscionability To have unconscionability there must be specific requirements: - **Substantive Unconscionability** - It's given by: extremely one-sided terms, too high price compared to the market and harsh allocation of the risk - **Procedural Unconscionability** - It's given by: difference in the bargaining power and surprise in certain terms (perché magari non si è letto il contratto) The general approach is to limit or modify the enforcement of the unconscionable terms in order to prevent unfairness or oppressive consequences. In some cases, the contract or specific clauses may be **voided** altogether. ## Substantive Fairness ## English Law - To have a contract void there must be both procedural and substantive unfairness. ## US Law - To have a contract void it's not necessary to have both procedural and substantive unconscionability. - Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc (water heater diventa troppo costoso) - Toker v. Westerman (frigorifero costoso, door-to-door seller) ## Procedural Fairness - Cresswell v. Potter (divorzio, marito vende casa. lei stupida) - Lloyd Bank Limited v. Herbert James Bundy (vecchio, infarto, rimozione beni) - Nguyen v. Barnes & Nobles Inc. (acquisto, no lettura contract) - Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. (antiquario che richiede tutto indietro se customer defaulted) - Carboni v. Arrospide (200% interesse e no altra scelta) - Weaver v. American Oil Co. (lavoratore sfruttato e ignorante) ## Both # Frustration 1. Unforeseeable event (no risk assumption) 2. The event destroys the subject matter of the contract or makes the performance impossible or it deprives the contract of its commercial purpose (English Law) or extremely onerous (impracticability and Hardship in the US Law) 3. The event is outside the parties control ## English Law - **Online agreements (boilerplate/standard contracts)** - Non leggendo i termini del contratto non si è legati. - **Force Majeure** - Taylor v. Caldwell (fuoco, teatro) - Krell v. Henry (ragione incoronazione, appartamento) ## US Law - **Online agreements (boilerplate/standard contracts)** - ProCD, Inc v. Zeidenberg (hacker, vendita dati, several lettura contract) - Nguyen v. Barnes & Nobles Inc. (acquisto, no lettura contract) - **Force Majeure** - **Change of circumstances (doesn’t allow for termination)** - MUR Shipping v. RTI - **Assumption of the risk of a change of circumstances (doesn’t allow for termination)** ## Impracticability/ Hardship - It doesn't allow for termination. - Tsakiroglou & Co v. Noblee & Thorl (canale di Suez chiuso) - It allows for termination. - Mineral Park Land Co. v. Howard (rimozione ghiaia, poi stop poi troppo costoso) # Contractual Remedies ## English Law - **Loss of amenity** - Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v. Forsyth (nominal damages) (piscina più piccola) - **The diminution in value/ the value rule (minor breaches)** - **Aesthetic purposes contract** - (material breaches and cost of replacement) - (euro, altra moneta) - United States v. Wegematic Corp (computer rivoluzionario, problemi tecnici, assumption of risk) - Dills v. Town of Enfield (parco, deposito, financing) - Transatlantic Financing Corp. v. United States(canale Suez, performance più costosa, pagato anche per assumersi il rischio) - **Emotional distress ** - Not recoverable under English Law unless physical consequences as well. - Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd. (vacanza rovinata) - Hadley v. Baxendale (mulino) - **Unforeseeable damages (they can't be recovered)** - **Assumption of the risk (foreseeable damages must be compensated)** - Koufos v. Czarnikow (cambio prezzi di mercato) - Victoria Laundry (Windsor) v. Newman Indus (lavatrici, contratto Ministro perso) ## US Law - **Loss of amenity** - Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal and Mining Co. (mineira, minor breach e quindi value rule) - Grossman Holdings v. Hourihan (casa con altra esposizione) - City school district of the city (material breaches and cost of replacement) - of Elmira v. Mclane Construction Co. (beams/travi brutte, material breach) - Fox v. Webb (casa con caratteristiche estetiche diverse) - **Emotional distress** - Recoverable even without physical consequences. - Deitsch v. The Music Company (matrimonio, band) - **Assumption of the risk (foreseeable damages must be compensated)** - **Reliance damages (profits are uncertain)** - Security stove v. American Rys. Express Co. (fiera scienza) - Anglia television Ltd. v. Reed (attore) - L. Albert & Son v. Armstrong Rubber co. (macchine gomma in ritardo ma ne usa 2) - Westside Galvanizing Services, Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (promissory estoppel e reliance damages) - **Restitutionary damages (it's compensated not the costs incurred by the plaintiff but the value of the performance)** - Osteen v. Johnson (cantante, material breach e restitutionary damages-quantum meruit) - Kutzin v. Pirnie (casa rivenduta, restitutionary damages- prezzo della seconda rivendita) - Vines v. Orchard Hills, Inc. (casa non più venduta, danni al plaintiff sono il deposito meno il valore della partial performance del defendant che sarebbe aver pagato il deposito) - Dandeneau v. Seymour (costruzione garage e casetta che non sono stati richiesti) ## No benefits from the performance, no damages for quantum meruit to pay # Mistake 1. Common mistake 2. It must be a fundamental one (mistake about a basic assumption in US Law) 3. It must produce a material effect 4. No parties must bear the risk ## English Law - **Fundamental mistake** - Griffith v. Brymer (incoronazione del re) - **Fraudulent misrepresentation** - Cundy v. Lindsay (nemo dat quod non habet) (via sbagliata, azienda simile) - Kingd Norton metal v. Eridge, Merret (si finge famoso uomo d'affari) - **Assumption of the risk in mistake** - Leaf v. International Galleries (quadro Constable, 6 anni) - Amalgamated Investment & Property v. John Walker & Sons (special architectural) ## US Law - **Fundamental mistake** - Sherwood v. Walker (mucca) - Smith v. Zimbalist (breach of warranty) (violino stradivarius) - **Assumption of the risk in mistake** - Firestone & Parson v. Union league of Philadelphia - Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly (assumption of the risk clause) # Torts ## English Law - **Battery** - Physical touch from the tortfeasor - Intention - Unreasonable behaviour in that context - Creation of a physical damage - Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc. (fumo considerato battery) - **Assault** - Wilkinson v. Downtown (marito senza gambe, scherzo) - **Privacy** - disclosure of a private fact which would be offensive and objectionable - it's not of legitimate public concern - Restatement of tort 652 - Not possible to sue for breach of privacy: - Kaye v. Robertson (ospedale, suit for injunction) - Campbell v. MGN Ltd. (lesbica, court of equity, duty to confidence) - Stephens v. Avery - **Consequential economic loss** - Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd. v. Martin & Co (elettricità, intruglio metallo e ossigeno) - **Pure economic loss** - It's not recoverable ## US Law - **Battery** - **Assault** - Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill (donna, commesso, molestie, no assault) - **Privacy** - It's possible to sue for breach of privacy but newsworthy prevails: - Cape Publications, Inc. v. Bridges (tizia nuda rapita) - Howell v. New York Post, Inc. (tizia amica di quella famosa, ospedale) - Diaz v. Oakland Tribune (trans) - Florida Star v. B.J.F. (stupro) - It's not recoverable: - People Express Airlines v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (zona evacuata per esplosione, perdita economica) # Negligence 1. Duty to care 2. Breach of the duty to care after an act that didn't fall in the standard of care of a reasonable person that the context required 3. Causation (factual and proximate) 4. A foreseeable damage ## English Law - **Breach of duty to care** - Vaughan v. Menlove (standards for normal adult anche per strani/leci, in dangerous activities) - **Standards for professionals** - **Standards of care for children (adults for dangerous activities)** - **Unforeseeability of the damage (no proximate causation)** ## US Law - **Breach of duty to care** - Easel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (suicidio, duty to inform) - **Standards for professionals** - Cervelli v. Graves (guidatore) - **Standards of care for children (adults for dangerous activities)** - Robinson v. Lindsay (pollice, 13, snowmobile) - Peterson v. Taylor (gasoline, contributory negligence) - **Unforeseeability of the damage (no proximate causation)** - Palsgraf v. Long Island Railway (firework, treno) - Hegyes v. Unjian Enterprises (incinta) - Dykem v. Gus Macker # Negligent False Misstatement - Hedley Byrne & Co v. Heller & Partners, Ltd. (no duty to care) (banca che dà consiglio) # Breach of Duty to Care - Ultramares Corporation v. Touche (fraud) (bilancio compagnia falso) - Glanzer v. Shepard (peso dei fagioli) - White v. Guarente (partnership, accounting) # Hand Formula - Enterprise (albero, partita basket) - Tieder v. Little (muro uni) - Graff v. Beard (alcohol) - Parrot v. Wells, Fargo (esplosione struttura) - McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc. (hotel, irruzione)