10

Professor Robert Butkin

University of Tulsa College of Law

M-F, 10.00 am-11.55 am (Room 2442)

Office: 233

Phone: o) 918.631.2443

c) 918.361.2420

Contracts Syllabus

Summer 2017

Abbreviations:

KCP = Knapp, Crystal & Prince, Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (8th ed. 2016)

R2d = Restatement (Second) of Contracts, reprinted in Knapp, Crystal & Prince, Rules of Contract Law (2015-2016)

UCC = Uniform Commercial Code, reprinted in Knapp, Crystal & Prince, Rules of Contract Law

CISG = Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, reprinted in Knapp, Crystal & Prince, Rules of Contract Law

TWEN= Course Page on Westlaw TWEN page

I. Introduction

KCP pp. 1-17

Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc. (handout)

R2d ''1, 17, 22, 24, 26, 33

UCC '' 1-103, 2-102, 2-105(1)

CISG, Articles 1, 2, 10

II. Classical Basis of Contractual Obligation

A. Intention to be Bound: The Objective Theory of Contract

Raffles v. Wichelhaus (handout)

Raffles v. Wichelhaus reading hints (handout)

KCP pp. 29-41, 618-621. 622 n.2

Ray v. William G. Eurice & Bros., Inc.

Park 100 Investors, Inc., vs. Kartes

R2d '201

B. Offer and Acceptance

1. Bilateral Contracts

KCP pp. 43-46, 51-60

Lonergan v. Scolnick

Normile v. Miller

Comment: Remedies for Breach of Contract

R2d §§17, 22, 24, 25, 40, 50(1), 60, 63(a), 36 (1), 38, 39, 43, 59

Handout on the Mailbox Rule

Contract Element Chart

2. Unilateral Contacts

KCP pp. 60-75

Cook v. Coldwell Banker/Frank Laiben Realty Co.

Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Comment: Remedies for Breach of Contract

Comparison of bilateral contracts to unilateral contracts (handout)

R2d §§ 22, 24-25, 45, 50

C. Consideration

Introduction: Enforcing Promises (TWEN)

1. What Is Consideration?

KCP pp. 98-102, 111-113 (note 6 only)

Hamer v. Sidway

R2d §§ 71, 79

2. What Isn’t Consideration?

KCP pp. 113-136

Dougherty v. Salt

Dohrmann v. Swaney

Plowman v. Indian Refining Co.

Comment: The Lawyers Role in Counseling for Legal Effect

Comment: The Power of Agents to Bind Their Principals

D. Contract Formation under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code

1. Mutual Assent under the Uniform Commercial Code

KCP pp. 144-150, pp. 155-157

Jannusch v. Naffziger

Comment: Introduction to the CISG

Uniform Commercial Code, Editors’ Note, Statutory Supplement, pp. 1-9

UCC §§ 2-204, 2-206, 2-305, 1-103 (b)

R2d §§ 22, 33, 50

CISG Arts. (1)(a), (2), (6), 10, 14, 18, 23, 24

2. Irrevocability by Statute under Article 2 of the UCC

Introduction to special rules for “merchants” under Article 2

UCC §§ 2-205, 2-104 (1), 1-205, 1-201 (37) and (43)

R2d § 25

3. Qualified Acceptance: The Battle of the Forms

KCP pp. 159-178

Princess Cruises Inc. v. General Electric Co.

Brown Machine, Inc. v. Hercules, Inc

R2d §§ 58, 59, 36, 50

UCC §§ 2-24. 2-2-5. 2-206, 2-207

Handout: Solving UCC §2-207 Problems (TWEN)

Problem Set on Contract Formation under Article 2 (TWEN)

E. Electronic and “Layered” Contracting

KCP, pp. 188-207

Hines v. Overstock.com

DeFontes v. Dell, Inc.

III. Liability in the Absence of a Bargained-For Exchange: Reliance on Gratuitous Promises, Unaccepted Offers, and the Principle of Restitution

A. Protection of Promisee Reliance: The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

1.  Promises Within the Family

KCP, pp. 213-222

Harvey v. Dow

R2d § 90 (1)

2.  Charitable Subscriptions

KCP, pp. 222-232

King v. Trustees of Boston University

Problem 3-1

R2d § 90 (2)

3.  Promises in Commercial Context

KCP, pp. 232-240

Katz v. Danny Dare, Inc.

B. Liability in the Absence of Acceptance: Option Contracts, Offeree Reliance, and Statutory Limitations on Revocation

1. The Option Contract as a Limitation on Offeror’s Power to Revoke Limiting: What is an Option Contract and When are They Enforceable?

KCP, pp. 251-259, 280-281

Berryman v. Kmoch

R2d §§ 87

UCC § 2-205

2. Offeree’s Reliance on an Unaccepted Offer as a Limitation on Revocability

KCP, pp. 260-278

James Baird v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.

Drennan v. Star Paving Co.

Pop’s Cones v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.

R2d, § 87

Background Materials on Public Contracting (handout)

3. Review Problems: Contract Formation and Irrevocability of Offers

KCP, pp. 157-158, Problem 2-4

KCP, pp. 281-282, Problem 3-3

C. Liability for Benefits Received: The Principle of Restitution

1.  Restitution in the Absence of a Promise

KCP, pp. 282-294

Credit Bureau Enterprises v. Pelo

Restatement of the Law of Restitution §1 (including comment) (TWEN)

2. Restitution as a Basis of Recovery when a Contract is Unenforceable

R2d, §§ 14, 376

3. Promissory Restitution: The Material Benefit Rule

KCP pp. 313-325, 327

Mills v. Wyman

Webb v. McGowan

Problem 3-5

R2d '' 82, 83, 86

IV. Statute of Frauds: Required Formality

A. General Principles

1. Scope of the Statute; Sufficiency of the Writing

KCP pp. 333-344

Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.

R2d '' 110, 130-134

2. Exceptions Based on Reliance

KCP pp. 355-364

Alaska Democratic Party v. Rice

Problem 4-1

R2d '' 129, 139

3. The Sale of Goods and the Statute of Frauds

KCP pp. 366-367

Buffaloe v. Hart

Problem 4-2

UCC '' 2-201, 1-201(37) & (43)

Discussion Problems on the UCC Statute of Frauds (TWEN)

V. The Meaning of the Agreement: Principles of Interpretation and the Parol Evidence Rule

A. Principles of Interpretation

1. General Principles

KCP, pp. 381-393

Joyner v. Adams

R2d '' 201-204, 206-207, 222-223

UCC '' 1-303

2. Contracts of Adhesion/ The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations

KCP, pp. 401-412

C&J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.

R2d ' 211

B. The Parol Evidence Rule

1. The Common Law Rule

KCP, pp. 412-421

Thompson v. Libby

R2d '' 209-211, 213-217

2. The UCC Rule and the Importance of Trade Usage

KCP, pp. 450-465

Hurst v. W.J. Lake and Co. (TWEN)

Nanakuli Paving & Rock Co. v. Shell Oil Co.

Problem 5-1

UCC '' 2-202, 1-303

VI. Supplementing the Agreement

A. Reasons for Implied Terms

KCP, pp. 471-475

Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon

R2d, § 204

UCC '' 1-103 (a), 2-305, 2-306, 2-308, 2-309

B. Implied Obligation of Good Faith

KCP, pp. 460-463 (portion of Nanakuli dealing with good faith argument), 479-480 (notes 1 and 2), 481-484, 496-498, 503-513

Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc.

Comment: Requirements and Output Contracts

R2d ' 205

UCC '' 1-201 (20), 1-302, 1-304, 2-103(1) (b), 2-306(1)

Pre-revised UCC §§1-201 (19) (TWEN)

C. Warranties

KCP, pp. 530-550

Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow

Speight v. Walters Development Co.

Problem 6-3

UCC '' 2-313, 2-314, 2-315, 2-316

Handout: UCC Warranties (TWEN)

VII. Avoiding Enforcement: Incapacity, Bargaining Misconduct, Unconscionability and Public Policy

A. Minority and Mental Incapacity

Review Halbman v. Lemke, the case you read for Foundations of Legal Study

R2d '' 14-16

UCC ' 1-103 (b)

B.  Duress and Undue Influence

KCP, pp. 574-584

Totem Marine Tug & Barge v. Alyeska Pipeline

R2d '' 174, 175 (1), 176-177

C. Misrepresentation and Nondisclosure

KCP, pp. 592-618

Syester v. Banta

Stechshulte v. Jennings

Comment on Lawyers= Professional Ethics

R2d '' 161-164, 168-169, 173

D. Unconscionability

KCP, pp. 622-623 (note D only), 644-661

Quicken Loans v. Brown

Comment: Mandatory Arbitration and Unconscionability

Comment: Consumer Protection Legislation

Handout on Unconscionability: TWEN

UCC ' 2-302

R2d ' 208

E. Public Policy

1.  Covenants in Restraint of Competition

KCP, pp. 661-675

Valley Specialists v. Farber

R2d '' 178, 181, 187-188

Handout: Policing Doctrines (TWEN)

2.  Public Policy in the Family Context

KCP pp. 675-694, 696-697

In Re Baby

Problem 7-4

R2d §§ 175-177

VIII. Mistake

A. Mutual Mistake

KCP pp. 702-712

Lenawee County Board of Health v.Messerly

B. Unilateral Mistake

KCP, pp. 712-724

DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Services

R2d §§ 151-154

IX. Changed Circumstances between Contract Formation and Time of Performance: When is Performance under a Contract excused?

A. Impossibility, Impracticability, and Frustration

KCP, pp. 724-743, 754-755

Waddy v. Ribbleman

Problem 8-1

R2d '' 261-265, 272

UCC '' 2-613, 2-614, 6-615

B. Contract Modification

KCP, pp. 755-772

Alaska Packers= Assn v. Domenico

Kelsey-Hayes Co. v. Galtaco Redlaw Castings Corp.

Problem 8-3

R2d '' 73, 89, 205

UCC '§ 2-209, 1-304

X. Breach of Duty

A. Express Conditions

KCP, pp. 785-809

enXco development Corp. v. Northern States Power Co.

J.N.A. Realty Corp. v. Cross Bay Chelsea, Inc

Problem 9-1

R2d §§ 224--229, 245

B. Substantial Performance and Material Breach

KCP, pp. 809-828

Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent

Comment: The Doctrine of Constructive Conditions

Sackett v. Spindler

UCC=s Perfect Tender Rule

R2d §§ '' 234-35, 237-238, 240-243, 245

UCC ''2-601, 2-608, 2-508

C. Anticipatory Repudiation and Opportunity to Seek Reasonable Assurances

KCP, pp. 828-836, 842-846

Truman L. Flatt & Sons v. Schupf

R2d '' 250, 251, 253, 256

UCC '' 2-609, 2-610, 2-611

Problem 9-2

D. The “Perfect Tender Rule” of UCC Article 2

UCC §§ 2-301, 2-602, 2-612, 2-508, 2-504, 2-718 (1), 2-719

XI. Expectation Damages

A. Introduction to Expectation Damages

KCP, pp. 851-877

Crabby’s, Inc. v. Hamilton

Handicapped Children’s Education Board v. Lukaszewski

American Standard Inc. v. Schechtman

R2d '' 344, 347-348

Problems Presented in Cases 1, 2, 3 in KCP, p. 856

B. Limitations on the Recovery of Expectation Damages

1. Foreseeability

KCP, pp. 877-883

Hadley v. Baxendale

R2d § 351

UCC 2-715(2)

2. Causation and Certainty

KCP pp. 883-895

Florafax International, Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc.

R2d §§ 347, 352

UCC '' 2-710, 2-715, 2-719

3. Mitigation of Damages

KCP, pp. 895-899

Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge

R2d §350

UCC 2-715 (2)

C. Non-Recoverable Damages: Attorneys Fees, Emotional Distress, Punitive Damages

KCP, pp. 919-920, 928-943

Erlich v. Menezes

Comment: Recovery of Punitive Damages for Bad Faith Breach of Contract

Problem 10-1

R2d §§ 353, 355

XII. Alternatives to Expectation Damages

A. Reliance Damages

KCP, pp. 971-988

Wartzman v. Hightower Productions, Ltd.

Walser v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc

R2d § 349

B. Restitution Damages

KCP 989-993

United States ex rel. Coastal Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Algernon Blair, Inc.

R2d §§ 370-371, 375-377

C. Availability of Specific Performance as an Expectation Remedy

KCP, pp. 1012-1025

City Stores Co. V. Ammerman

R2d §§ 359-367

D. Agreed Remedies: Liquidated Damages and Penalty Clauses

KCP, pp. 1034-1051

Barrie School v. Patch

R2d ' 356

UCC ' 2-718 (1), 2-719

XIII. Buyer’s and Seller’s Remedies under UCC Article 2

KCP, pp. 943-950 (Omit Problems).

Read all UCC Sections cited on pp. 943-950

Prepare Problem Set on Remedies under UCC Article 2 (TWEN)