CONTRACTS

Professor Sanford N. Katz

 

Fall Semester 2000-2001

 

 

Required Casebook:                Studies in Contract Law (5th Edition) by Murphy, Speidel and Ayres, Foundation Press, 1997.

 

Required Supplement:             Selections for Contracts (Softbound) compiled by Farnsworth and Young, Foundation Press, 1992.

 

Required Text:                        The Bramble Bush (Softbound) by Karl N. Llewellyn, Oceana Publications, Inc., 1996.

 

Required Text:                        Contracts (Softbound or Hardbound 3rd Ed.) by E. Allan Farnsworth, Aspen Law and Business (1999).

 

Required Reading:                   Melvin Aron Eisenberg, The World of Contract and the World of Gift, 85 Cal. L. Rev. 821 (1997).

Sanford N. Katz, Marriage as Partnership, 73 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1251 (1998).

 

Note:    Throughout the course we shall be referring to the Restatement of Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code.  Both are included in Selections for Contracts.  Pages refer to cases and materials in Studies in Contract Law by Murphy, Speidel and Ayres.

 

Assignment for the first two classes:                   Studies in Contract Law, pp. 1-18.

                                                                        Bramble Bush, pp. 1-18; 19-38.

 

 

Ch.  Three - The Agreement Process..................................................................... pp. 227-228.

Lucy v. Zehmer..................................................................................................... p. 230.

Notes.................................................................................................................... pp. 233-238.

Lonergan v. Scolnick............................................................................................. p. 243.

Notes.................................................................................................................... p. 246.

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store........................................................ p. 247.

Notes.................................................................................................................... pp. 250-251.

Problem:  The Case of the Minimum Trade-In Allowance....................................... pp. 251-252.

Problem:  The Case of the Statue of Liberty Commemorative Coins........................ p. 253.

Southworth v. Oliver.............................................................................................. p. 259.

Problem:  The Case of Sam the Coin Dealer........................................................... p. 268.

Comment:  Solicitations of Competitive Offers........................................................ pp. 268-271.

Hendricks v. Behee............................................................................................... p. 273.

Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green.......................................................................... p. 276.

Notes.................................................................................................................... pp. 278-279.

Corinthian Pharmaceutical Systems, Inc. v. Lederle................................................ p. 279.

Notes.................................................................................................................... p. 284.

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (Notes)............................................................. pp. 285-290.

 

Glover v. Jewish War Veterans of U.S. (Notes)..................................................... pp. 291-294.

Problem................................................................................................................ p. 298.

Comment.............................................................................................................. pp. 298-300.

Adams v. Lindsell (Notes)..................................................................................... pp. 301-303.

Notes (4) and (5).................................................................................................. pp. 304-305.

Ammons v. Wilson (Notes).................................................................................... p. 309.

Harris v. Time, Inc................................................................................................. p. 316.

Minneapolis & St. Louis RR Co. v. Columbus (Notes)........................................... p.321

 

Farnsworth, pp. 109-156; 207-222.

Llewellyn, pp. 39-58; 59-76.

 

Termination of Offer:  Destruction of Power of Acceptance

Dickinson v. Dodds (Notes).................................................................................. p. 339.

Problem:  The Case of the Rejection, Revocation and Acceptance Race................. p. 344.

Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University v. Burgess................................... p. 383.

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Westside Investment Corp (Notes).......................... p. 348.

Petterson v. Pattberg (Notes)................................................................................. p. 354.

Marchiondo v. Scheck........................................................................................... p. 357.

Problem:  The Case of Professor Fuzzy’s Well....................................................... p. 361.

James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.................................................................... p. 361.

Drennan v. Star Paving Co..................................................................................... p. 364.

Problem:  The Case of the Bid Shopping Contractor............................................... p. 375.

 

Farnsworth, pp. 157-206.

 

Insufficient Agreement:  Tests of Enforceability....................................................... p. 376.

Raffles v. Wichelhaus............................................................................................. p. 377.

Varney v. Ditmars.................................................................................................. p. 384.

Community Desgin Corp. v. Antonell..................................................................... p. 417.

Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Inc. v. Scheider................................................................ p. 392.

Joseph Martin, Jr. Delicatessen, Inc. v. Schumacher............................................... p. 393.

Notes.................................................................................................................... pp. 405-412.

Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc............................................................................ p. 421.

 

Farnsworth, pp. 519-539.

 

Defects in Bargaining............................................................................................. pp. 445-446

Boise Jr. College Dist. v. Mattefs Const. Co.......................................................... p. 446.

Beachcomber Coins, Inc. v. Boskett...................................................................... p. 454.

Lenawee Cty. Board of Health v. Messerly............................................................ p. 457.

Comment:  Reformation for Mistake in Expression.................................................. p. 467.

Ayer v. Western Union Telegraph Co.................................................................... p. 468.

Problem................................................................................................................ p. 470.

Morta v. Korea Insurance Corp………………………………………………..... p. 471

 

Fletcher v. Fletcher (Supplementary Materials)

 

Farnsworth, pp. 223-276; 276-295; 517-540; 617-636.

 

The Bases of Promissory Liability........................................................................... pp. 43-57

Bargain Contract:  Promise Plus Consideration....................................................... p. 108.

Kirksey v. Kirksey................................................................................................ p. 57.

Langer v. Superior Steel Corp............................................................................... p. 58.

Thomas v. Thomas................................................................................................ p. 67.

Comment.............................................................................................................. p. 70.

Problem................................................................................................................ p. 79

Hammer v. Sidway................................................................................................ p. 79.

Notes.................................................................................................................... p. 143.

Comment:  The Peppercorn Theory....................................................................... p. 88.

Jones v. Star Credit Corp...................................................................................... p. 90.

In re Green............................................................................................................ p. 95.

Fiege v. Boehm..................................................................................................... p. 98.

 

Farnsworth, pp. 39-48; 69-88.

 

Pre-Existing Duty................................................................................................... p. 103.

Levine v. Blumenthal.............................................................................................. p. 105.

Angel v. Murray.................................................................................................... p. 110.

 

Swartz v. Leiberman (Supplementary Materials)

 

Problem................................................................................................................ pp. 116-117.

Mutuality of Obligation........................................................................................... p. 117.

Wood v. Lucy, Dady Duff Gordon......................................................................... p. 124.

Moral Obligation:  Promise Plus Antecedent Benefit............................................... p. 133.

Comment:  The Historical Roots of the “Moral Obligation” Doctrine....................... p. 137.

Mills v. Wyman..................................................................................................... p. 139.

Notes.................................................................................................................... p. 143.

Webb v. McGowan............................................................................................... p. 145.

Harrington v. Taylor (Notes).................................................................................. p. 148.

Problem:  The Kindly Neighbor.............................................................................. p. 151.

Problem:  The Case of the Grateful Merchant......................................................... p. 151.

 

Farnsworth, pp. 50-68.

 

Comment:  The Evolution of Promissory Estoppel................................................... p. 152.

Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank of Jamestown................... p. 155.

Feinberg v. Pfeiffer................................................................................................ p. 163.

Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc. (Notes)............................................................. p. 172.

Cohen v. Conles Media Co. (Notes)...................................................................... p. 176.

Comment.............................................................................................................. p. 181.

 

Farnsworth, pp. 85-101.

 

Granfield v. Catholic University of America (Supplementary Materials)

 

Formalities Contracting.......................................................................................... pp. 185-188.

Statute of Frauds:  Necessity of a Writing............................................................... p. 188.

North Shore Bottling Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons..................................................... p. 202.

Mason v. Anderson............................................................................................... p. 204.

Comment.............................................................................................................. p. 207.

Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp................................................................. p. 210.

Comments............................................................................................................. pp. 215-218.

Comments............................................................................................................. p. 223.

 

Farnsworth, pp. 363-422; 427-438.

 

Impracticability...................................................................................................... pp. 712-713.

Mineral Park Land Co. v. Howard......................................................................... p. 715.

Taylor v. Caldwell................................................................................................. p. 724.

Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Dunbar............................................................. p. 729.

Problem................................................................................................................ p. 731.

Paradine v. Jane.................................................................................................... p. 748.

Krell v. Henry........................................................................................................ p. 749.

 

Farnsworth, pp. 617-668.

 

Illegality................................................................................................................. p. 539.

Sinnar v. LeRoy..................................................................................................... p. 541.

Comment.............................................................................................................. p. 557.

Watts v. Watts...................................................................................................... p. 566.

Comment: In re Baby M........................................................................................ p. 574.

Problem................................................................................................................ p. 576.

 

Town Planning & Engineering Assoc. v. Amesbury Specialty Co. (Supplementary Materials)

Harness Tracks Security, Inc. v. Bay State Raceway, Inc. (Supplementary Materials)

R.R. v. M.H. (Supplementary Materials)

Simeone v. Simeone (Supplementary Materials)

 

Farnsworth, pp. 321-351.

 

Third Party Beneficiary.......................................................................................... pp. 1062-1064.

Johnson v. Holmes Tutle Lincoln Mercury.............................................................. p. 1064.

Hale v. Groce........................................................................................................ p. 1068.

Notes.................................................................................................................... pp. 1080-1081.

 

Farnsworth, pp. 671-685; 701-718; 742-751.