Enforcement by Bargain
Home > Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
Hamer v. Sidway
- - uncle promised nephew $5,000 when he turned 21 if he refrained from smoking and drinking until then
- - he did so and then uncle wouldn’t pay, saying nephew, by stopping, was benefited, not harmed, and thus no consideration
- - ct. found for nephew, because his detriment was relinquishment of a legal right, even if it meant his health was better off; benefit to uncle was that he “got what he wanted—him to stop smoking and drinking”
Nat Nal Service Stations Inc v. Wolf
- - stat. of frauds case where Δ said no contract because it wasn’t to be performed within one year
- - ct. said SoF didn’t apply because there was nothing to say it couldn’t be done within a year or that it had to extend beyond one year
Petroleum Refractionating Corp. v. Kendrick oil Co.
- - judge said that Π’s giving up of a legal right was enough to constitute consideration and thus contract (like Hamer v. Sidway)
Embola v. Tuppela
- - Δ got loan of money from Π to try to get property back and promised him a cut if he did; he did so but then his estate wouldn’t give money up to person who loaned it to him
- Estate argued loan was a gift; ct. ruled it was an investment with not good odds of getting a return, so it was a detriment/benefit bargain and thus a contract
Browning v. Johnson
- - Π made deal to sell his medical practice to Δ but then wanted to cancel it; both parties thought it was enforceable. Π told Δ he’d pay him $40K to enter into new contract whose purpose was to cancel the old. They did so but then Π said he needn’t pay the $40K b/c the old contract wasn’t a contract and thus wasn’t paying for anything
- - Ct. ruled that even if the old contract wasn’t one he was still “giving it up” and this constituted a valid consideration; Δ “gave up” his right to enforce, or at least try to enforce, original contract, and that was enough
Wood v. Lucy Lady Duff Gordon
- - Lady Duff made agreement with Wood for Wood to be exclusive marketer for her fashion designs in return for half the profits; but then Lady Duff herself started marketing them and Wood sued.
- - Lady Duff said there was no contract because he was not obligated to do anything! That IF he marketed products, THEN he’d have to share the profits; but he had no obligation to actually market them.
- - Cardozo said in light of commercial intent of agreement, there was implied promise to use best efforts by Wood to market her designs; therefore bilateral contract existed!
What would you like to do?
Home > Flashcards > Print Preview