1 / 6

Contracts, Fall 2008

This overview explores the essential elements of contract formation, focusing on the manifestation of mutual assent to a bargain. It examines the processes of offer and acceptance, the implications of contracts implied in fact or in law, and the role of promissory estoppel as a substitute for a formal promise. The principles outlined include the necessity of evidencing objective intent to be bound and compliance with the Statute of Frauds when applicable. Key cases like Normile and Petterson v. Pattberg illustrate pivotal concepts in contract law, particularly regarding offer revocation and the conditions under which an offer remains valid.

hanne
Télécharger la présentation

Contracts, Fall 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Contracts, Fall 2008 Class 8

  2. Contract Formation: [Actual or Deemed] Manifestation of Mutual Assent to a “Bargain” • 1) a) Offer and Acceptance OR • b) Contract Implied in Fact or in Law OR • c) Promissory Estoppel as Substitute for Bargain/Promise • AND • 2) Evidencing [objective] intent to be bound to something the court can feasibly enforce or give a remedy for. • AND • 3) In Writing if Statute of Frauds applies, unless exceptions apply

  3. Normile snoozed and lost… NORMILE P makes offer. D makes counteroffer to P, rejecting P’s offer. P does nothing. X accepts D’s offer. P is told that X and D have a deal; information is effective to revoke D’s offer to P.

  4. Petterson v. Pattberg and Present Day Rule Classical hard-line case, Petterson v. Pattberg: “The offeror may see the approach of the offeree and know that an acceptance is contemplated. If the offeror can say “I revoke” before the offeree accepts, however brief the interval of time between the two acts, there is no escape from the conclusion that the offer is terminated.” Modern rule: Has performance begun? Reasonable reliance on offer staying open?

  5. Izadi

  6. When is an ad an offer?Pepsi/Harrier and Ford Not an offer-no objective person could have believed an offer had been made for 7,000,000 An offer: clear, definite, explicit, leaving nothing for negotiation (but some courts would say ‘not an offer’ on similar grounds as for Pepsi- ‘reasonable expectation’ is that this isn’t an offer.)

More Related