Case Briefs

Mary Short v HR Block

Issue - whether a breaching party will be held to a liquidated damages clause

ROL- liquidated damages may not be punitive and must have been reasonable when signed

Hadley v Baxendale

Issue - whether a party who breaches a K can be held responsible for unforeseen damages

ROL- damages must be foreseeable by the breaching party for them to be held responsible for consequential damages

Nebraska Beef v Wells Fargo

Issue - Whether continuing to perform after receiving definite terms can constitute acceptance of a unilateral contract. 

ROL - Unilateral contracts can be accepted by actions (alone)

Jorge Construction v Pomona County Schools

Issue - Whether consequential damages are “general” damages?

Whether a Plaintiff can recover “consequential damages?

ROL -  Consequential are “special” damages (NOT “general”).

 “Special” aka “Consequential” damages MUST be FORESEEABLE and not too speculative by the breaching party to be recovered by the Plaintiff. 

Kolodziej v Mason

Issue - whether valid legal offer is made if the offer was made “in jest”?

ROL - A K is made based on how a “reasonable” person would be interpret the words said.

“Reasonable” is an objective standard

”The Objective Theory of Law” -> Determination is NOT on what’s in someone’s mind, but what is OBJECTIVELY observable 

Welles v Academy of Motion Pictures

Issue - Whether subjective belief “meaning” to create a K does so?

ROL - Ks are only enforceable as expressed in the K.

“The objective Theory” -> It does not matter what you MEANT; it matters what you SAID

Especially true to be held to a K if you are: a) the Maker, and/or B) sophisticated

Bickham v Washington Bank

Issue - Whether material changes to a BILATERAL K can be made by only one of the Parties to K?

ROL -  A BILATERAL cannot be changed by one side independent of the other side ALSO agreeing to the change.

Chenard v Marcel Motors

Issue - Whether a UNILATERAL K offering a prize is enforceable if someone “wins?”

Whether the winning Party can sue for “Breach of K”/ damages when the prize is refused?

ROL - A unilateral K is formed when an offer invites acceptance through performance.

Prize winners can sue for breach of K if not given the prize in a unilateral K

Mark Realty v Rogness

Issue - Whether an “exclusive right of sale” creates a binding K?…which kind is it?

ROL -  Real estate  “exclusive rights of sale” are BILATERAL!!!.

Therefore, these are only revokable IF the other Party does not do what they have agreed to do (in the exchange of promises

Marvin v Marvin

Issue - Whether  unmarried couples living together can legally enforce a K about property and financial support (when they break up)?

ROL - If non-marital partners enter into a K with mutual obligations, a K CAN be enforced, SLA there was an agreement - and ACTIONS fulfilled that agreement. 

Wrench v Taco Bell + “Scrabble”

Issue - Whether an implied-in-fact exits when one party provides: ideas, materials and/or services…that the other Party uses, even through the Parties never enter into an express K?

ROL -  An implied-in-fact contract is an agreement shown through the ACTIONS and BEHAVIORS of the parties rather than a written or spoken agreement.

Powell v Thompson-Powell

Issue - Whether a quasi-K can make someone liable because there is no proper agreement?

ROL -  If there is no enforceable agreement, a Party may still recover under “Quasi-K” when the opposing Party has been “unjustly enriched”.

Winkel v Family Health Care

Issue - Whether changing a written K can be done orally?

Whether implied in LAW K can step in if something unfair happens

ROL - A written K does NOT PREVENT Parties from modifying them…so long as both agree

Cannot use implied is LAW if there is (even an unfair K or exercise of that unfair K)