Contracts I

Implied-in-fact contract

requires mutual assent; parties agreement is inferred, in whole or in part, from their conduct

express contract

parties manifest their agreement by words, written or spoken

quasi contract

requires a benefit conferred by the plaintiff, appreciation of that benefit by the defendant; does not require consent

contractual duty

the rules you voluntarily write for yourself

legal duty

These are obligations imposed on you by the government or society, whether you like it or not

for a contract to be unconscionable, what two requirements does it have to have?

procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability

procedural unconscionability

two parties engaged in the contract don’t have equal bargaining power

substantive unconscionability

terms so abusive that it is unreasonable

restitution damages

return of benefits conferred (bestowed upon) on defendant

reliance damages

court reimburses you for the expenses and detriments you racked up because you trusted the other party's promise

expectation damages

the default money remedy in contract law. Their goal is simple: to put the injured party in the exact same position they would have been in if the contract had been fully and perfectly performed (you get everything)

incidental damages

the minor, out-of-pocket expenses you have to pay while scrambling to clean up the other party's mess and find a backup plan (comes after the breach; spending money to mitigate the damages)

promise

intent to obligate oneself to perform or refrain from performance

disgorgement

put the defendant in the position he was in before the contract by restoring to the plaintiff the benefits conferred on him by the defendant plus give up profits made as a result of the wrong result (not as common in the US)