Contracts: Common Law

Empro v Ball Co

Both companies exchange letters, make an “agreement to agree”, but one balks. You cannot enforce an agreement to agree that leaves out material terms under common law.

Quake v American Airlines

Quake won a bid to work for a contracting job with American Airlines. They had a “letter of intent” to hire him, but its terms allowed for a cancellation clause. Thus, because of ambiguity and the so called escape hatch, no enforceable contract was made. 

Hamer v Sidway

Nephew Case: Uncle promises his nephew that if he stops drinking, then he’ll pay him at a specified time. Because drinking is something that the nephew was entitled to as a right of law, he’s allowed to have those terms be consideration and thus this contract is enforceable. 

Pennsy v American Ash

Pennsy got the “Aggrite” for free, and then sued when American Ash refused to remove the defective (and hazardous) product. Unforunately for Pennsy, the contract was enforceable because both sides benefitted (American Ash ditched the toxic waste, Pennsy got the material for free). Like the homeless person hypo, you don’t need to know what the other person is getting out of the deal for it to be enforceable. 

Dougherty v Salt

The aunt promised her young son an inheritance, and wrote a signed note promising him the money on her death. Her estate contested the validity of her promissory note. Unfortunately for the nephew, that promise counted as a gift not an enforceable contract. Therefore, when contested, the estate prevailed and no contract was established. 

Plowman v Indian Refining Co

A class action in which the employees of the refining company were promised payments for a fraction of their salary once they were laid off to save costs. The higher ups who represent the company did not approve of this offer. Therefore, the company isn’t on the hook. Additionally, walking to the office to pick up checks doesn’t count as consideration. Those actions lend credence to the idea that the payments were a voluntary gift, not an enforceable contract. 

Harris v Time

Junk mail case: even though the plaintiff had some merit in that they were misled by false advertising and entered into a unilateral contract that was subsequently breached, it was dismissed as “the law does not deal with trifles”. 

Marshall Durbin Food Corp v Baker

Durbin stayed at the company in exchange for specific compensation after a series of conditions were met. Durbin’s role staying on in the company and not seeking alternative employment constituted consideration. 

Sateriale v RJ Reynolds Tobacco 

“Camel Cash Points” were issued to be exchanged in a catalog. The court found that such an arrangement was a unilateral contract. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to relief when RJ Reynolds refused to honor the voucher for the big prize. 

Walker v Keith

Lease agreement without definite pricing was considered an “agreement to agree” and had no merit as an enforceable contract. 

Pepsi Case

Advertisements are not a legally binding offer, except in specific circumstances

Princess Cruises

Mechanic / repair work is a service that falls under the jurisdiction of common law, not UCC. Therefore, Princess’s action of behaving under GE’s contract makes it binding.