Enforcing implied-in-fact agreements is an important means of ensuring that two parties' intent to make binding promises is honored
Implied-in-fact agreements must contain the same elements as express contracts, including acceptance and consideration
Employers can weaken the presumption of an at-will employment relationship by making statements about employee rights and expectation in policies and manuals
The court found that Gottlieb's term (consequential damages limitation) was included in the contract even though it appeared only on Gottlieb's forms and was not specifically discussed by the parties
Alps' failure to read Gottlieb's forms was irrelevant, according to the court. This is generally true as a contract law principle
If Alps foresaw the likelihood of certain outcomes, such as consequential damages from customer complaints, it should have addressed it with Gottlieb
Contracts require consideration for both promises. Care must be taken in limiting one's obligations, particularly if the result is no legal detriment at all
The amount of consideration is generally not an issue, but it must be more substantial than simply an acknowledgement or statement
The failure of a condition precedent can excuse a party's performance, even if it is minor. Similarly, the existence of a minor condition subsequent can cut off a party's obligation to perform
Parties often use conditions to ensure that a transaction occurs under favorable and anticipated circumstances
Parties should carefully consider whether conditions are necessary and understand that they may, at times, provide hold-up power to one side
Courts are reluctant to excuse performance due to impossibility or impracticability
The court specifically distinguishes between objective impossibility and personal impossibility. Only the former excuses performance
Contracting parties have the ability to allocate known risks in the contract. For that reason, impossibility must be an unexpected ocurrence
When a contract involves unique subject matter, courts may award specific performance because there is no amount of money that can make up for the failure of the contractual promise
Land is a common context for the award of specific performance because it is such a unique asset
One party was tricked (fraud) or forced (duress)
Both parties were confused about essential part of contract (mutual mistake)