Professor S. Harris
Fall 2009
CONTRACTS
Assignments—First Iteration
The following assignments are subject to change. Changes will be announced in class, by email, or both. The numbers in brackets refer to the approximate number of classes to be spent on
each topic. Page references are to the Scott & Kraus casebook (indicated by “CB”) or to the
Supplement prepared for this course (indicated by “Supp”), which is available on the course web
page. Sections of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts are designated by R2d; sections of the
Uniform Commercial Code are designated by UCC. They are reproduced in the Selected Provisions
book.
CHAPTER 1: AN OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW
WHAT IS A PROM ISE?
[3]
CB 1–13 (Bailey v. West); R2d §§ 1, 2, 4.
[2]
CB 13–29 (Lucy v. Zehmer); R2d §§ 7, 12–16, 18.
R2d § 7 provides as follows: “A voidable contract is one where one or more parties
have the power, by a manifestation of election to do so, to avoid the legal relations
created by the contract, or by ratification of the contract to extinguish the power of
avoidance.”
[1]
Supp 1–4 (Leonard v. Pepsico). The television commercial at issue in the Pepsico case can
be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_n5SNrMaL8.
Leonard did not purchase the Pepsi points by himself. Rather, he raised capital by
forming a limited partnership. Would you have invested with Leonard? Click here
for one approach.
WHICH PROM ISES WILL BE ENFORCED ?
[2]
Indefiniteness: CB 29–35 (Varney v. Ditmars); Supp 4–8 (Corthell Thread); Supp 9–14
(Walker v. Keith); CB 36–41 (D.R. Curtis, Co. v. Matthews); R2d §§ 33, 34; UCC 2–102,
2–105(1), 2–204, 2–305.
[2]
Consideration: CB 41–52 (Hamer v. Sidway; St. Peter v. Pioneer Theater); Supp 15–20
(Idea Research v. Hultman); R2d §§ 17, 18, 71, 81.
[2]
Unconscionability: CB 52–64 (Williams v. Walker–Thomas Furniture I, II); R2d § 208;
UCC 2–302.
WHAT CONSTITUTES PERFORMANCE?
[3]
CB 64; Danzig Introduction & Chapter III (Jacob & Youngs v. Kent); CB 69–72; R2d §§
224–229, 237, 241; UCC 2–601.
ALLOCATING RISK OF NONPERFORMANCE
[2]
CB 72–84 (Stees v. Leonard); R2d §§ 151, 152, 154; CB 84–93 (Taylor v. Caldwell); R2d
§§ 261, 263; UCC 2–615.
For background on the Surrey Music Hall, see http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Surreyhall.htm.
-2-