Contracts – Case Briefs (Chap. 3)
Varney v. Ditmass (pp. 110 – 119)
I.
Plaintiff Varney, architect and draftsman, brought forth an alleged wrongful
discharge/breach of contract against his employer, Mr. Ditmars.
Cause of Action:
Breach of contract; wrongful discharge of employee
Facts (historical):





P hired at firm; wanted to work for $40, but started at $35
D made several statements leading up to action, including that he would raise salary to 40
(which he did) and on Jan. 1st, 1911 would give P a share of D’s profits.
Election night: P claims he didn’t want to work, D never expressly stated he had to – just
that he “should work” – and P stays home sick (11/7 – 12/1).
D fires
P claims loss of wages, breach of contract
Procedure:



Trial: complaint dismissed
Appellate: affirmed with costs
Standard of Review/Rule: Promise must be in certain and explicit terms so that
their full intention may be ascertained to a reasonable degree of certainty.
Question Presented/Issue:





Was a definite, fair offer of contract made and accepted within reasonable
certainty?
Should plaintiff seek to recover daamges from the time period of 9/7 – 12/31?
Is the promise to pay an employee a fair share – however unspecified at time of contract
– of profits too vague to be emforced?
For a contract to be valid, must the promise or the agreement of the parties be certain
and explicit in order for their full intention to be understood to a reasonable degree of
certainty?
Answer:

No, it was not.


No, because he was not currently working and providing services during that time to
qualify the requirements in the contract.
Likely yes
Ratonale:




Reasonable + fair = intent
Indefinite facts/factors: including profits to be shared by D (nominal) The amount is
indefinite and difficult to trace.
Quantum merit: work that has been done should be rewarded up to Nov. 7
No damages for 9/7 – 12/31 because he was not servicing the employer, per the original
agreement; no evidence
Holding:


Affirmed lower court
Concurrence/Dissent: evidence is the problem, but a promise to pay fair share isn’t
always vague. Plaintiff has failed upon burden of proof to PROVE damages/contract, not
because the terms were too vague. Holds for reversal and new trial.
Dodge v. Trustees of Macon Woman’s College (pp. 120 - 122 )
II.
Plaintiffs, several female students at Randolph-Beacon Women’s College, are suing the
Trustees of RBWC for breach of contract.
Cause of Action:
Breach of contract;
Facts (historical):




Ps are a collection of female students
Ps are suing Trustees Board for breach of contract
Contract: the Trustees’ plan to transition to a boy/girl college violated the contract
the plaintiffs made with the college when they accepted their offers of admissions.
Ps request injunction to remain a predominately women’s college [remedy]
Procedure:



Trial: complaint dismissed; sustained demur (defendants file to prove that Plaintiff’s
claim is legally insufficient)
Appellate: affirmed
Standard of Review/Rule: Promise must be in certain and explicit terms so that
their full intention may be ascertained to a reasonable degree of certainty.
Question Presented/Issue:


Did the plaintiffs’ breach of contract entitle them to receive a college education in a
predominantly female academic environment for four years?
Was a definite offer and acceptance of four years of education present in the contract, and
then subsequently breached?
Answer:


No, and if it was they produced no proof
No, no evidence of definite promise made
Ratonale:


No evidence of contract produced by Plaintiff (burden of proof)
No promise found
Holding:

Affirmed lower court

Concurrence/Dissent: disagrees with application of legal principles; doesn’t find
pleadings incomplete, and argues that oral complaints should be acknowledged.
III.
Joesph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen, Inc v. Schumacher (pp. 123 - 125 )
Plaintiff, Martin, is a tenant who rents the Defendant’s retail store. Martin is thus suing for
a breach of contract.
Cause of Action:
Breach of contract;
Facts (historical):




Martin rents for 500 first year; raised to $650 by fifth year
Renewal of five year lease began, but D claimed he would raise the rent to $900
P got rental appraised, sought fair market price of %545.41
Contract: pg. 123, 30 days notice at agreed upon annual rents
Procedure:




Trial: complaint dismissed; sustained eviction
Appellate no. 1: reinstated complaint and granted consolidation
Appellate (NY Supreme Court): reverse appellate decision and trial court orders
reinstated
Standard of Review/Rule: Promise must be in certain and explicit terms so that
their full intention may be ascertained to a reasonable degree of certainty.
Question Presented/Issue:

Is a realty lease’s provision that the rent for a renewal period was “to be agreed upon” an
enforceable contract/ “definite” promise?
Answer:

No, terms of agreement were indefinite and uncertain – no specificity.
Ratonale:



Contract holdings + definite terms (foundation for reasoning)
Concern of substance, not form
Renewal clause is indefinite; no formula; no glue binding to “fair market value,” it merely
state “agreed upon by both tenant and landlord”
Holding:

Affirmed lower court; reversed appellate no. 1

Concurrence/Dissent: “agreed upon” should not prevent judicial intervention: i.e. those
should still be just concerns to consider in reappraising and negotiating new rental price;
rental should be overall evaluated at a reasonable market price.