Table of Contents
advertisement
Table of Contents ————— Page PREFACE MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM COPYRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM TABLE OF CASES MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Chapter 1. The Agreement ProcessMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 1. Intent to Contract MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Lucy v. ZehmerMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Balfour v. BalfourMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Sanchez v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM K. D. v. Educational Testing ServiceMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MCC–Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova d’AgostinoMMMMMMMM ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 2. The Offer MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (a) Offers Distinguished From Expressions of Opinion, Advertisements, Etc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Collins v. ReynardMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Hawkins v. McGeeMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM McGee v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (b) Bids and Auction Sales MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Hoffman v. Horton MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (c) Offers Distinguished From Preliminary Negotiations and Price QuotationsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM United States v. Briggs Manufacturing Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Lonergan v. Scolnick MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Fairmount Glass Works v. Crunden–Martin Woodenware Co. MMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 3. Intent to Memorialize and Indefiniteness MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Haines v. City of New York MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM BMC Industries, Inc. v. Barth Industries, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Southwest Engineering Co. v. Martin Tractor Co., Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Walker v. Keith MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Copeland v. Baskin Robbins U.S.A. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Oglebay Norton Co. v. Armco, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Eckles v. Sharman MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 4. The Acceptance MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (a) Preliminary Problems With Respect to Acceptance MMMMMMMMMMMM State v. Malm MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ‘‘Industrial America’’, Inc. v. Fulton Industries, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM xi iii v xxi 1 1 1 5 6 11 15 15 17 17 17 19 22 25 32 34 34 35 36 36 37 39 41 42 42 53 56 68 73 77 83 90 97 100 101 101 101 104 xii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4. The Acceptance—Continued Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM A. W. Brian Simpson, Quackery and Contract Law: The Case of the Carbolic Smoke BallMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (b) Acceptance by Silence and Conduct MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Gem Broadcasting, Inc. v. MinkerMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Wilhoite v. Beck MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Miller v. NBD Bank, N.A.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 107 109 114 117 119 119 121 125 125 127 133 5. When May an Offer to a Unilateral Contract No Longer Be Revoked? MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 136 Petterson v. Pattberg MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 136 State v. WheelerMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 140 Motel Services, Inc. v. Central Maine Power Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 140 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 144 6. Acceptance of Indifferent Offers and Acceptance by Promise MMMM 144 Brackenbury v. Hodgkin MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 144 Cantu v. Central Education Agency MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 146 Fujimoto v. Rio Grande Pickle Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 148 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 151 7. Mistake in TransmissionMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 153 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 153 8. Termination of a Revocable OfferMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 153 Swift & Co. v. SmigelMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 153 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 158 9. Counter–Offers and the Battle of the Forms MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 160 Gardner Zemke Co. v. Dunham Bush, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 160 Diamond Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Krack Corp.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 169 Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 175 Klocek v. Gateway, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 179 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 185 10. E–CommerceMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 186 Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 186 Jane K. Winn and Brian H. Bix, Diverging Perspectives on Electronic Contracting in the U.S. and EU MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 196 11. Option Contracts MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 197 Beall v. Beall MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 197 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 200 Examination Questions and Multiple Choice Question MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 200 Chapter 2. Consideration MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 202 1. What Is Consideration? MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 202 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 202 Hamer v. Sidway MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 202 Kirksey v. Kirksey MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 205 Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. American Ash Recycling Corp. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 206 Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel and Casino MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 210 White v. McBride MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 214 Eleanor Thomas v. Benjamin Thomas MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 220 Fiege v. Boehm MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 222 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 226 2. Pre–Existing Duty Rule MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 228 Schwartzreich v. Bauman–Basch, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 228 TABLE OF CONTENTS xiii Page 2. Pre–Existing Duty Rule—Continued Angel v. Murray MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM In re Morton Allan Segall, Attorney MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Kibler v. Frank L. Garrett & Sons, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 3. Duress and Statutory Changes MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Roth Steel Products v. Sharon Steel Corp. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corp. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 4. 232 236 236 240 244 246 246 255 260 Consideration in Bilateral Contracts and Mutuality of Obligation MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 260 Ridge Runner Forestry v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of AgricultureMMMM 260 Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff–GordonMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 263 Mezzanotte v. Freeland MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 264 Miami Coca–Cola Bottling Co. v. Orange Crush Co.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 267 Texas Gas Utilities Company v. S.A. Barrett MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 268 Tigg v. Dow Corning Corp. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 272 Summits 7, Inc. v. KellyMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 278 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 282 Chapter 3. Moral Obligation and ConsiderationMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 285 285 289 290 292 293 296 298 Sheldon v. Blackman MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Estate of LovekampMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Banco Do Brasil S.A v. State of Antigua and Barbuda MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Harrington v. TaylorMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Webb v. McGowin MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Richard A. Posner, Gratuitous Promises in Economics and LawMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Chapter 4. Promissory Estoppel MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 300 300 305 309 312 317 319 323 327 329 Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Shoemaker v. Commonwealth Bank MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Drennan v. Star Paving Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Werner v. Xerox Corp. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Deli v. University of MinnesotaMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Examination ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Chapter 5. Parol Evidence and Interpretation MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 333 1. The Parol Evidence Rule MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 333 Mitchill v. Lath MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 333 Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 338 George v. Davoli MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 342 Val–Ford Realty Corp. v. J.Z.’s Toy World, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 345 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 345 2. Interpretation MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 347 Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.MMMMMM 347 Trident Center v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 351 Beanstalk Group, Inc. v. AM General Corp. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 357 Untiedt v. Grand Laboratories, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 360 Raffles v. Wichelhaus MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 361 Nanakuli Paving and Rock Co. v. Shell Oil Co.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 365 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 371 Examination Problem MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 372 xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 6. Capacity of Parties MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 373 Pettit v. Liston MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 373 Ortelere v. Teachers’ Retirement Board MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 376 Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 384 Chapter 7. Avoidance for Misconduct or Mistake MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 386 1. Duress MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 386 Gallon v. Lloyd–Thomas Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 386 Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corp. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 390 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 390 2. Undue InfluenceMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 391 Francois v. FrancoisMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 391 Methodist Mission Home of Texas v. N A B MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 396 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 399 3. Misrepresentation and Non–Disclosure MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 400 Cousineau v. Walker MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 400 Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 407 Withdrawal When a Lawyer’s Services Will Otherwise Be Used to Perpetrate a Fraud MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 411 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 412 4. Mistake MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 414 414 418 424 429 ReformationMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 430 Hoffman v. Chapman MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 430 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 433 Unconscionability and Duty to Read MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 434 Williams v. Walker–Thomas Furniture Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 434 Knapp v. American General Finance Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 438 Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 445 White v. McBride MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 452 K.D. v. Educational Testing ServiceMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 452 Nelson v. Rice MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM White v. Berenda Mesa Water Dist.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 5. 6. Chapter 8. Conditions, Performance and Breach MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 453 1. The Nature and Effect of Express Conditions, the Time Classification of Conditions MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 453 Audette v. L’Union St. JosephMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 453 Inman v. Clyde Hall Drilling Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 454 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 457 2. Distinguishing Express Conditions From Other Provisions MMMMMM 458 (a) Does the Contract Create an Express Condition, a Promise, or Both? MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 458 General Credit Corp. v. Imperial Casualty and Indemnity Co. MMMMMMM 458 New York Bronze Powder Co. v. Benjamin Acquisition Corp. MMMMMMMM 462 (b) Time or Express Condition? MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 469 Thos. J. Dyer Co. v. Bishop International Engineering Co. MMMMMMMMMMM 469 J.J. Shane, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 474 Wm. R. Clarke Corporation v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America MMMMMMMMMMMMM 475 (c) Condition to Formation or Condition to Performance? MMMMMMM 479 Hicks v. Bush MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 479 Edmund J. Flynn Co. v. Schlosser MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 482 Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 484 TABLE OF CONTENTS xv Page 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Constructive Conditions MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 486 Stewart v. NewburyMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 486 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law (1881)MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 489 Monroe Street Properties, Inc. v. Carpenter MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 490 Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. KentMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 491 Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. KentMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 495 VRT, Inc. v. Dutton–Lainson MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 496 Walker & Co. v. Harrison MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 498 K & G Constr. Co. v. Harris MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 501 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 506 Constructive Conditions Under the UCCMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 508 Bartus v. RiccardiMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 508 A.B. Parker v. Bell Ford, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 510 Emanuel Law Outlines, Inc. v. Multi–State Legal Studies, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMM 512 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 519 Less Than Substantial Performance: Quasi–Contractual Recovery MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 519 Martin v. SchoenbergerMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 519 Lancellotti v. ThomasMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 522 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 527 Recovery by a Party in Default: Divisibility, Independent Promises, and Separate Contracts MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 527 Scavenger, Inc. v. GT Interactive Software, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 527 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 528 Wrongful Prevention and Noncooperation MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 529 Cantrell–Waind & Associates, Inc. v. Guillaume Motorsports, Inc. MMMMMMM 529 Locke v. Warner Bros. Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 532 Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 538 Swartz v. War Memorial Commission of Rochester MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 539 Stop & Shop, Inc. v. Ganem MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 540 Market Street Associates Limited Partnership v. Frey MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 544 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 551 Waiver, Estoppel, and Election MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 552 Dynamic Machine Works, Inc. v. Machine & Electrical Consultants, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 552 Shipsview Corp. v. Beeche Systems Corp.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 556 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 564 9. Relief From Forfeiture MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 566 566 569 578 582 596 10. Conditions of Satisfaction MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 597 Western Hills, Oregon, Ltd. v. Pfau MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 597 Van Iderstine Co., Inc. v. Barnet Leather Co., Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 601 Largent Contracting, Inc. v. Great American Homes, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 604 Indoe v. Dwyer MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 606 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 611 11. A ‘‘Realist’’ Looks at Conditions MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 612 R. Childres, Conditions in the Law of Contracts MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 612 12. Prospective Failure of Condition and Breach by Repudiation MMMM 615 Hochster v. De La TourMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 615 Sharp v. Holthusen MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Burger King Corp. v. Family Dining, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM R & R of Connecticut, Inc. v. StieglerMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Ins. Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 12. Prospective Failure of Condition and Breach by Repudiation— Continued Drake v. WickwireMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Cohen v. KranzMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Short Essay Examination Question MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 619 622 625 627 Chapter 9. Impossibility or Impracticability, and FrustrationMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 628 1. Hardship MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 628 Paradine v. Jane MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 628 2. Impossibility MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 629 Taylor v. Caldwell MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 629 Cazares v. SaenzMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 632 American Trading and Production Corp. v. Shell Int’l Marine Ltd.MMMMMM 638 Northern Corp. v. Chugach Electric Assoc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 643 Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 647 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 654 3. Frustration MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 657 Krell v. Henry MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 657 Western Properties v. Southern Utah Aviation, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 661 407 East 61st Garage, Inc. v. Savoy Fifth Avenue Corp. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 663 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 667 4. Impracticability MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 669 Pollard v. Shaaffer MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 669 Turner Entertainment Co. v. Degeto Film GmbH MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 671 Short Essay Question Covering Chapters 8 & 9 of This Casebook MMMMMMMM 678 Chapter 10. Enforcement Remedies MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 679 1. Damages MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 679 (a) General Principles MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 679 Hawkins v. McGeeMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 679 Protectors Insurance Service, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Hadley v. Baxendale MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Mader v. StephensonMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Gruber v. S–M News Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Anglia Television v. Reed MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (b) Employment Contracts MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Ballard v. El Dorado Tire Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (c) Sale of Goods and RealtyMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Chronister Oil Co. v. Unocal Refining and MarketingMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM National Controls, Inc. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc. MMMMM Donovan v. Bachstadt MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (d) Construction ContractsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Jacob & Youngs v. Kent MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Company MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 679 683 686 687 690 692 694 695 695 699 700 700 704 708 714 716 716 716 724 (e) Punitive Damages, Penalties, Efficient Breach, Agreed Damages and Limitations of Liability MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 724 Patton v. Mid–Continent Systems, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 724 Daniel Friedmann, Restitution of Profits Gained by Party in Breach of Contract MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 726 TABLE OF CONTENTS xvii Page 1. Damages—Continued Daniel Friedmann, The Efficient Breach FallacyMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Wassenaar v. Panos MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Kvassay v. MurrayMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM AFLAC, Inc. v. Williams MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Wedner v. Fidelity Security Systems, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 2. Restitution MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Oliver v. Campbell MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 3. Specific PerformanceMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (a) Substantive Basis for Equitable Relief MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Centex Homes Corp. v. BoagMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Carbon County Coal Co.MMMM American Brands, Inc. v. Playgirl, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM De Pol v. SohlkeMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (b) Equitable DefensesMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Schlegel v. Moorhead MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Schlegel v. Moorhead MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Meyer v. BenkoMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Duane Sales, Inc. v. Carmel MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Alan Schwartz, The Case for Specific Performance MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (c) Covenants Not to Compete MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Karpinski v. Ingrasci MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Howard Schultz & Associates v. Broniec MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 728 732 738 741 743 745 750 752 752 755 756 756 756 759 762 764 768 770 770 770 774 775 776 777 779 781 781 785 789 Chapter 11. Third Party BeneficiariesMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 790 1. Intended, Incidental, Creditor and Donee Beneficiaries MMMMMMMMMMMM 790 Lawrence v. FoxMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 790 Vrooman v. Turner MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 794 Seaver v. Ransom MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 796 Seaver v. Ransom MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 799 H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 800 Western Waterproofing Co. v. Springfield Housing AuthorityMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 802 Lucas v. Hamm MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 806 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 809 2. Defenses, Vesting and Relative Rights of the PartiesMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 811 Erickson v. Grande Ronde Lumber Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 811 Alexander H. Revell & Co. v. C.H. Morgan Grocery Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 813 Detroit Bank and Trust Co. v. Chicago Flame Hardening Co.MMMMMMMMMMMMMM 815 Drewen v. Bank of Manhattan Co.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 819 Rouse v. United StatesMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 821 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 822 Chapter 12. Assignment and Delegation MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 824 1. The Nature and Effect of an Assignment MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 824 Donovan v. Middlebrook MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 824 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 826 2. Deviants From the Norm MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 826 Speelman v. Pascal MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 826 xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3. 4. 5. Are the Rights Assignable and Performances Delegable? MMMMMMMMMM 829 (a) General Principles MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 829 Macke Co. v. Pizza of Gaithersburg, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 829 Sally Beauty Co. v. Nexxus Products Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 833 Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 838 (b) Contractual Prohibitions Against Assignment MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 839 Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza, Ltd. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 839 ProblemMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 841 (c) Option Contracts MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 842 Franklin v. Jordan MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 842 Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 842 (d) Improper Assignment or Delegation—Effect of Waiver MMMMMMM 843 Seale v. Bates MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 843 Other Problems Relating to Assignment and Delegation MMMMMMMMMM 846 Western Oil Sales Corp. v. Bliss & WetherbeeMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 846 Kagan v. K–Tel Entertainment, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 849 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 851 Defenses, Counterclaims, Vesting and Latent Equities MMMMMMMMMMMMM 852 Associates Loan Co. v. WalkerMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 852 Cooper v. HolderMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 854 Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Registry Hotel Corp. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 856 Fall River Trust Co. v. B.G. Browdy, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 860 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 861 Chapter 13. The Statute of Frauds MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 862 1. The One Year ProvisionMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 862 C.R. Klewin, Inc. v. Flagship Properties, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 862 J. M. Perillo, The Statute of Frauds in the Light of the Functions and Dysfunctions of FormMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 869 Erhlich v. Diggs MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 869 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 874 2. The Memorandum MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 875 Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 875 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 879 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Effect of Part or Full Performance, Rescission and Modification and the One Year Provision MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 880 McIntosh v. Murphy MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 880 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 885 Statute of Frauds and Sales of GoodsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 886 Azevedo v. Minister MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 886 Cohn v. FisherMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 890 Potter v. Hatter Farms, Inc.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 894 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 898 The Suretyship Statute of Frauds MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 899 Lawrence v. Anderson MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 899 Yarbro v. Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 901 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 905 Statute of Frauds and Marriage MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 905 Dienst v. Dienst MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 905 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 907 Statute of Frauds and Real Property MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 908 Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 908 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 912 TABLE OF CONTENTS xix Page Chapter 14. Discharge of ContractsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 913 1. Mutual RescissionMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 913 Copeland Process Corp. v. Nalews, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 913 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 917 2. Release, Executory Accord, and Substituted Agreement MMMMMMMMMMM 918 Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 918 Goldbard v. Empire State Mutual Life Ins. Co.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 920 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 925 3. Novation, Account Stated, Tender, and Union of Right and Duty MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 925 First American Commerce Co. v. Washington Mutual Savings Bank MMMM 926 Old West Enterprises, Inc. v. Reno Escrow Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 928 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 930 Chapter 15. Bargains That are Illegal or Against Public Policy MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 931 1. Some Varieties of Public PoliciesMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 931 Hewitt v. Hewitt MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 931 Troutman v. Southern Railway Co. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 938 In re James H. Himmel, Attorney MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 941 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 947 2. Effect of Illegality MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 948 Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Carbon County Coal Co. MMMMMMMMMM 948 Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 951 Singleton v. Foreman MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 957 Cochran v. Dellfava MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 961 ProblemsMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 963 Appendix A. Uniform Commercial Code 1991 Official Text MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 967 B. Revised UCC Articles 1 and 2 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 1023 C. Model Answers to Select Examination Problems MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 1091 INDEX MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 1095 *
