Contract1 [case 1-16]
1. MONGE v. BEEBE RUBBER CO.
1.Fact
Olga Monge worked at Beebe Rubber Co. earning $1.84 hourly, based on an oral job agreement. Promised advancement for good performance, she faced harassment from her supervisor, which escalated when she rejected his advances. Despite no performance issues, she was terminated at 2:00 a.m. Monge sued Beebe Rubber for breaching their verbal contract, citing her dismissal and personal issues. She was awarded $2,500 by the jury, covering lost wages and emotional distress, but Beebe Rubber appealed.
2.Issue
whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that defendant, through its agents, acted maliciously in terminating plaintiff's employment.
3.Rule
A termination by the employer of a contract of employment at will which is motivated by bad faith or malice or based on retaliation is not in the best interest of the economic system or the public good and constitutes a breach of the employment contract. Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 297 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 1973)
4.Application
Plaintiff sued for breach of an employment contract for an indefinite period of timeIn employment contracts, the employer's discretion must be balanced with the employee's interest in job security and the public's interest in fairness. Terminating an at will contract out of bad faith, malice, or retaliation breaches the contract and harms the economic system. Evidence suggests the foreman's hostility and the manager's collusion led to the termination, indicating malicious intent. However, damages for mental suffering aren't typically recoverable in contract cases, especially when not directly caused by the termination. The plaintiff's personal issues predated the dismissal, requiring a reduction in damages unless she agrees to it.
5.Conclusion
Remanded. (There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that defendant, through its agents, acted maliciously in terminating plaintiff's employment.)
*Feedback
회사측에서 해고는 계약위반이 아님을 주장할 수있는가? O
Monge측에서는 부당해고가 계약위반이라고 주장하나?
회사측에서 계약위반 아니라고 하는 근거는?
fail to report. 계약법의 rule은 안나옴.
뉴햄프셔 주법이 적용되어야함. 뉴햄프셔의 법이 없으면 타주 법 적용 가능.
이 사건은 타주법 적용~
부당해고는 근로계약위반이다.
breach of employment contract.
계약은 갑과 을의 권리, 의무를 합쳐서 약속이라고 함.
그래서 계약이란 무엇인가. legal promise.
약속위반 한 것은 무엇인가?
- Monge가 무단결근해서 해고한 것임. / Monge는 무단 결근에 대해서 반박해야한다.
3일간 아파서 결근을 악의적으로 3일간 무단결근.
결혼 - 사소한 거짓말등은 계약위반 아님.
계약위반에 mental suffering 인정안함.
돈으로 해결.
evidence 채택문제 없음.
진단이 안나오면 증거 없다.
2. HOWARD v. DORR WOOLEN COMPANY
1. Fact
Franklin Baldwin was employed by Dorr Woolen Company (Defendant) until his employment was terminated due to economic reasons when he reached the age of 50. Baldwin passed away at 51. Following his demise, Baldwin’s widow ( Plaintiff) and Roert Howard III, the estate’s administrator, filed a lawsuit against Dorr Woolen Company. Howard contended that Baldwin’s dismissal was a result of his age and health, cnstituting bad faith. Howard asserted that this case warranted compensation, citing the precedent set y the New Hampshire Sumpreme Court’s decision in Monge, which stipulated that terminating an at-will employeed in bad faith constituted a contractual breach.
2. Issue
whether the widow or the estate of the deceased employee is entitled to damages, particularly the value of a group term life insurance policy, for an alleged wrongful discharge by the defendant company.
3. Rule
*Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974).
Such allegations constitute a discharge motivated by bad faith, malice, or retaliation, and warrant recovery for breach of contract.
*44 AM. JUR. 2d Insurance § 1925 (1969). : there was a named beneficiary, Laura M. Baldwin, the decedent's widow.
4. Application
The plaintiff argued that the defendant wrongfully discharged Mr. Baldwin to deprive him of retirement benefits, while the defendant contended that the discharge was not for that purpose and that any age or sickness-related claims were not actionable under the law. The court ruled against the plaintiffs because it found no evidence that the defendant discharged Mr. Baldwin to deprive him of retirement benefits. It rejected the argument that discharge due to age or sickness warrants recovery, stating such situations are typically addressed through medical insurance or disability provisions. The court determined that the administrator's reliance on prior case law was misplaced and that Laura M. Baldwin lacked grounds to sue as a third-party beneficiary or beneficiary under the insurance policy. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant.
5. Conclusion
Plaintiffs' appeals dismissed; defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.All concurred.
(The widow or the estate of the deceased employee isn’t entitled to damages, particularly the value of a group term life insurance policy, for an alleged wrongful discharge by the defendant company. )
*Feedback
하워드 부당해고 소송 제기했나? OK.Long term discharge 주장.
기간의 정함이 있으면 기간이 정함이 없어도 아무때나 해고할 수 없음.
회사에서 경영상 이유로 해고했음.
경영이 어려울 때 해고할 수있다 라는 약속은 있었나? 이것에 계약 내용중의 하나인가?
법으로 확립되어 있다면 이것도 계약 내용중의 하나가 될 수 있음.
경영상의 이유로 해고할 수 있는가가 법으로 확립되어 있는가.
회사의 주장은 경영상의 이유가 약속..법으로 보장.
규정 : 회사 사규에 없으면 common law에 있어야.
어떤 상황에만 경영상 해고가능?
public policy가 condemn하는걸 거부하는경우(뇌물 받아와라 거절해서 해고되면 망지 케이스 적용 가능). 몸이 안좋아서 해고하면 악의가 아니라고 봄. publc policy는 justice나 law라고 볼 수 있음.
하워드 케이스에서 망지는 선례임. 망지의 케이스는 더 이상 타주의 법이 아님.
일방에게 타격이 너무 크면 public policy 적용해서 예외를 인정해줌.
3. CLOUTIER v. THE GREAT ATALNTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO.
1. Fact
From 1939 to 1977, David Cloutier worked for the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, rising from clerk to store manager. Despite being excluded from a collective bargaining agreement due to his managerial role, he arranged police protection for employees. When the protection was terminated, he and his assistant manager complained to supervisors. Following company policy, they were instructed to make bank deposits themselves, but on December 19, 1976, after working seven days straight, Cloutier's store was burglarized, resulting in a $30,000 loss. Despite continued deposits, he was suspended and later discharged for violating bookkeeping procedures, leading to a wrongful discharge lawsuit and a $92,000 verdict in his favor.
2. Issue
whether the plaintiff sufficiently established a public policy to satisfy the test for the wrongful discharge of an employee set forth in Howard v. Dorr Woolen Co., 120 N.H. 295, 414 A.2d 1273 (1980).
3. Rule
*Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. at 133, 316 A.2d at 551,Howard v. Dorr Woolen Co., 120 N.H. 295, 414 A.2d 1273 (1980) : Howard and Monge together impose a two-part test which plaintiffs must meet to establish a wrongful discharge cause of action. First, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was motivated by bad faith, malice, or retaliation in terminating the plaintiff's employment. The plaintiff presented evidence from which reasonable persons could find that the defendant acted with bad faith, malice or retaliation.
4. Application
The plaintiff argued that the defendant's termination following a burglary, which occurred after the company ceased safety procedures, amounted to bad faith and retaliation, while the defendant contended that the plaintiff's dismissal was justified due to violations of company cash management responsibilities. The court reasoned that A & P's reinstatement of safety procedures post-burglary, coupled with the abrupt discharge of the plaintiff, hinted at potential bad faith or retaliation. Additionally, the lack of proper communication during the plaintiff's termination suggested malice towards him. The unequal treatment, where only the plaintiff faced consequences for cash mishandling, was deemed unfair. Moreover, the plaintiff's dismissal violated public policies such as OSHA regulations and rest-day entitlements. Allowing the jury to determine the existence of public policy was deemed appropriate by the court. This case underscores issues concerning corporate responsibility, employee rights, and the significance of public policy in wrongful termination claims.
5. Conclusion
Affirmed. ( The plaintiff sufficiently established a public policy to satisfy the test for the wrongful discharge of an employee.)
* Feedback
같은 부당해고 사건에 적용되는 케이스가 서로 다른 fact로 이루어져 있음.
서로 다른 결과를 나타내고 있기 때문에 또다른 부당해고 사건에 발생했을 때,
어떤 케이스를 적용하느냐 라는 문제에 대해서 생각 및 판단을 하기 위해서.
비교하고 차이점과 공통점을 알아내야 한다. 91년 사건이므로 앞의 두 케이스를 인용~
Bad faith에 의한 해고를 주장했을 것임.
이 케이스에서는 어떤 근거로 해고하였나.
회사 사규위반. 그런 점에서는 MONGE case 와 같음. 회사사규위반이라도 MONGE case 에서 bad faith됨.
RSA위반도 public policy 위반으로 주장될 수 있는가?
RSA연방법이나까 직업의 안전과 건강관련한 법률- 이 법률도 public policy해당.
증거 없이 변호인의 말로만 배심원을 현혹시키면 판사가 배심원 판단을 무효화 시킴.
MONGE 는 해고라는 계약위반에만 적용됨 – 그것도 bad faith.
여기에 적용되는 rule – 부당해고이다. 이슈의 평서문과 같은 것임.
Public policy와 issue에는 bad faith넣어야. bad faith에 의한 부당해고.
4. NORMILE v. MILLER
1 Fact
Hazel Miller listed her property for sale. Michael Normile, shown the property by broker Richard Byer, made an offer with a specified expiration time. Miller made changes to the offer, initialed them, but didn't alter the expiration time. Normile interpreted it as an option contract, choosing to wait. Miller sold the property to another buyer, informing Normile through Byer. Normile tried to accept later, but Miller refused, leading to a lawsuit for specific performance. Despite Normile's motion being denied by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, he appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
2. Issue
whether a time limit within which an offer must be accepted that is contained in a prospective purchaser's written offer to purchase real property becomes a term of the seller's subsequent counteroffer, transforming the counteroffer into an option contract or irrevocable offer for the time stated if signed under seal.
3. Rule
* Benya v. Stevens & Thompson Paper Co., Inc., 143 Vt. 521, 468 A.2d 929 (1983) : The counteroffer by the offeree requires the original offeror, plaintiff-appellants, to either accept or reject.
* The principle of revocation of offer states that an offer can be freely revoked by the offeror at any time before it is accepted by the offeree. Once the offeror revokes the offer and the offeree receives reliable information of this revocation, the offeree's power to accept the offer is terminated.
* Goeckel v. Stokely, 236 N.C. 604, 607, 73 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1952). : It is axiomatic that a valid contract between two parties can only exist when the parties "assent to the same thing in the same sense, and their minds meet as to all terms.
4. Application
Plaintiff-appellants argue that defendant's counteroffer constituted a binding and irrevocable option to purchase within the time frame specified in their original offer. However, the court rejects this argument, emphasizing that defendant's counteroffer did not incorporate all the provisions of the original offer. Instead, it constituted a qualified acceptance or counteroffer, which required either acceptance or rejection by the original offerors. As plaintiff-appellants neither accepted nor rejected the counteroffer, and defendant entered into a contract with another party, the power of acceptance was effectively terminated. Despite plaintiff-appellants' subsequent attempts to accept the counteroffer, the offeror's revocation had already terminated their power of acceptance, rendering their efforts futile. Consequently, the court affirms that defendant's counteroffer did not transform into an irrevocable offer, and the subsequent contract with another party was valid and binding.
5. Conclusion
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. (The counteroffer does not transform into an option contract or irrevocable offer for the stated time if signed under seal.)
*Feedback
앞케이스3개 : contract성립에 대해 따지지 않음. 앞의 3개케이스는 계약이 성립된 사건.
4번째 케이스는 계약성립이 문제가 되고 있음. 계약위반은 계약성립 이후의 문제임. 계약의 성립과 관련한 offer acceptance? Consideration.. counteroffer(offer의 reject)라는 것이 있어서 성립을 offer는 언제든 revoke 가능하다. acceptance한다는 것은 받아들이는 경우만 acceptance…계약은 입체적으로 가야 함. 계약은 약속이다.
청약- 승락- consideration있으면 계약 o 약속자체에서 권리와 의무 있음.
Meeting of minds..(agreement)
언제 계약이 성립되는가? A와B가 성립된 이후. A가 C와 계약하면
2중계약이 되어서 사기가 될 수 있음. 계약이 정확히 성립된 시점은 acceptance가 되었을 때.
Consideration은 청약 승락 약속의 내용을 확인해봐야 알 수 있음.
1 dollar consideration 계약서에 넣는 이유 - consideration있다는것을 확실히 하기 위해서.
1980년 8월 4일 몇 시? 1980년 8월 5일 5시 pm. / acceptance날짜가 closing date.
1980. 8.5. 5시- closing date 잔금 치르고 권리증 받는 날. / 1980. 8.4. 5시 – offer date.
Segal하고는 8월 5일 about noon. Acceptance. Segal과 계약성립
밀러. Acceptance는 언제 일어났나? Segal계약성립 좀 전에.
밀러의 acceptance는 언제인지 불확실함.
이 케이스 option contract아님. (counteroffer에서 5시까지라는 내용이 없어졌기 때문)
revoke되었음. 이 케이스. 계약성립된 것 아님.
Revoke의 의사표시 보냄. Offer – acceptance X – Segal과 계약함. –
Revoke의 의사표시 함. Segal이랑 계약하면서 다른 사람에게 revoke함.
5. PETTERSON v. PATTBERG
1.Fact
Petterson possessed a property on which the defendant held a bond secured by a mortgage. Though the mortgage was originally to be paid in quarterly installments, the defendant offered Petterson a $780 discount if he paid it off entirely by a specified date. Petterson arrived at the defendant's residence with cash in hand, intending to settle the entire mortgage ahead of schedule. However, before any payment was made, the defendant disclosed that the mortgage had been sold to a third party, thereby rescinding the offer. As a result, Petterson was obliged to pay the full mortgage amount to the third party. Subsequently, the executor of Petterson's estate (plaintiff) initiated legal action against the defendant to recover the $780 loss. The trial court ruled in favor of the executor, a decision upheld by the appellate court, prompting the defendant to file an appeal.
2.Issue
The issue is whether a binding contract was formed between Petterson and the defendant regarding the early repayment of a mortgage, given the defendant’s withdrawl of the offer before it could be accepted.
3.Rule
* WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS§ 60; LANGDELL’S SUMMARY § 4; Offord v. Davies, 142 Eng. Rep. 1336
: It is elementary that any offer to enter into a unilateral contract may be withdrawn before the act requested to be done has been performed.
4.Application
The plaintiff contended that a binding contract was established based on the defendant's offer and their intention to fulfill its terms, while the defendant argued that the offer was withdrawn before acceptance, thus denying the existence of a contract.
The court ruled that no binding contract existed between the parties due to the withdrawal of the offer before acceptance. This decision was based on the premise that the offeror had the right to revoke the offer before acceptance, as established in legal precedent. The court found that the offeror’s withdrawal of the offer occured before any acceptance was made, rendering the contract void. Consequently, the plaintiff’s claim for damages was dismissed by the court.
5.Conclusion
Reversed. (No binding contract was formed between Petterson and the defendant. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages.)
* Feedback
1.Offer있었는지. (offer인지 proposal인지. Option contract. )
2. Acceptance언제인지 : counteroffer(기존 offer을 reject한 것임) 인지. acceptance한것인지. UCC 2조.
Acceptance가 offer에 대해 변경을 가한것인지.
3. consideration있었는지.
1단계 성립. Formation.
2단계 이행 여부.
3단계 damages계산. 돈 계산.
이 케이스는 acceptance 문제
이 case 법원은 revocation방법으로 I revoke 말을 revoke라고 봄.
I came to pay – acceptance로 보지 않음. Offer가 행동을 요구하는 offer이기 때문.
Option contract는 예외적으로 revoke – 나의 철회 언제까지는 하지 않겠다.. 라는 말. 있어야.
Acceptance 방법, revoke방법, performance를 여기서는 acceptance로 봄(예외적인 방법)..
6. HAMER v. SIDWAY New York Court of Appeals 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891)
1. Fact
Louisa Hamer received multiple $5,000 transfers and interest from William E. Story II, based on expected inheritance from his uncle, William E. Story Sr. Story's uncle promised him $5,000 if he refrained from certain behaviors until age 21, which Story adhered to and informed his uncle upon reaching the age. The uncle confirmed the money's reservation but added the condition of releasing it when he deemed Story capable. After the uncle's death without fulfilling the promise, Hamer sued Franklin Sidway, the executor, to enforce the agreement. Though the trial court favored Hamer, the appellate court overturned it, leading to Hamer's appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
2. Issue
whether a contractual obligation existed between William E. Story Sr. and his nephew, William E. Story II, upon the latter's twenty-first birthday, regarding a $5,000 debt
3. Rule
*The Exchequer Chamber, in 1875 : 'A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.' Courts 'will not ask whether the thing which forms the consideration does in fact benefit the promisee or a third party, or is of any substantial value to anyone. It is enough that something is promised, done, forborne or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him.' (Anson's Prin. of Con. 63.)
4. Application
The plaintiff contends that William E. Story II, as the nephew, failed to receive the anticipated $5,000 from William E. Story Sr., his uncle. William E. Story II argues that, as the nephew, he was entitled to receive $5,000 upon reaching his twenty-first birthday under the condition of refraining from alcohol, tobacco, cursing, and other activities. The defendant asserts that the promise made to the plaintiff lacks enforceability. They argue that the nephew benefited from refraining from alcohol and tobacco, suggesting that his actions do not constitute valid consideration for the promise made. The court recognized refraining from alcohol and tobacco as valuable consideration, acknowledging that William E. Story II fulfilled the conditions of the agreement by abstaining from these activities. Considering the fulfillment of consideration in each case, the court deemed refraining from alcohol and tobacco as legally sufficient consideration, thus supporting the enforceability of the promise. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff's claim is valid, obligating the promised amount to be paid.
5. Conclusion
Order reversed and judgment of Special Term affirmed. (A contractual obligation existed between William E. Story Sr. and his nephew, William E. Story II, upon the latter's twenty-first birthday, regarding a $5,000 debt.)
* Feedback
조카는 약속대로 지급해야한다. Vs. 약속한적 없다.
Offer와 acceptance는 있음.
계약성립 세가지 중 consideration을 다투면 됨.
4개 케이스는 offer acceptance 다 있는지만 consideration 여부로 다툼.
A와 B의 Detriment?
A의 detriment : money
B의 : drinking, smoking..
Promise는 from now on. 과거는 안됨.
앞으로 ~하자. 앞으로 detriment가 있다란 의미임.
7. PLOWMAN v. INDIAN REFINING CO
1.Fact
Eighteen workers, including Plowman, were terminated by Indian Refining Co. and started receiving pension payments. These employees had all been employed by Indian Refining for several years before their dismissal. Despite remaining on the payroll without performing additional duties, they were assured of lifelong pension checks. A letter from Indian Refining conveyed that the pension checks were issued in acknowledgment of years of dedicated service and to mitigate the impact of their termination. To collect their pension checks, employees were required to retrieve them from the main office. However, a year after pledging the pension checks, Indian Refining ceased the payments, leading the employees to initiate a breach of contract lawsuit.
2.Issue
whether there was sufficient consideration to make the agreement an enforceable contract.
3.Rule
* Williston on Contracts, vol. 1, § 142; 13 Corpus Juris, 359;
Something which has been delivered before the promise is executed, and, therefore, made without reference to it, cannot properly be legal consideration.
*1 Pars. Cont. 434. : But the morality of the promise, however certain or however urgent the duty, does not, of itself, suffice for a consideration.
4.Application
The plaintiff argued that the lifetime pension payments, offered as compensation for past services, constituted a legal contract, while the defendant contended that such payments did not form a legal agreement and that the contract was void. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the plaintiff's claim of a lifetime pension agreement. Emphasizing the legal principle that past services or moral obligations do not constitute valid consideration for a contract, the court ruled that mere past services cannot establish a legal agreement. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff lacked sufficient legal grounds to support their claim, leading to the nullification of the alleged contract. Therefore, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim, highlighting that past services do not qualify as legal consideration.
5.Conclusion
There will be a decree in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiffs' bill for want of equity.
( Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a valid contract due to the lack of adequate consideration, as past services or moral obligations do not constitute valid consideration for a contract.)
*Feedback
A회사의 detriment : salary
B근로자의 detriment : 회사그만두는 것(회사를 그만두지 않아도 되는데 그만두는것? 해고될 사람이 그만두는것?):
Past contributions 은 X
Consideration 문제에서는 detriment찾아야 함.
회사가 근로자의 detriment가 없다는 것을 주장가능?
일할 수 있는데 일 하는 권리를 포기.. deriment되는데 반박들어옴.
하지만 어차피 정리해고해야하는 상황이라면 당연히 lay off되어야하기 때문에 give up이 아니기
때문에 detriment 아님.
8. WEBB v. MCGOWIN
1.Fact
Plaintiff Joe Webb sustained permanent injuries while preventing a workplace accident, saving J Greeley McGowin’s life. In gratitude, McGowin promised to pay Webb $15 every two weeks for life. McGowin upheld this agreement until this passing eight years later. However, after McGowin’s death, the execuors of his estate, Floyd and Joshph McGowin, ceased the payments, Webb then sued the executors to enforce McGowin’s promise and recover the outstanding aount. The Court of Appeals of Alabama ruled in Webb’s favor, deeming the promise enforceable due to the significant benefit Webb conferred upon McGowin. The executors appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama, which did not address the case’s fact but considered the legal arguments presented.
2. Issue
Whether caring for, improving, and preserving the promisor's property by a promisee, even without request, constitutes sufficient consideration for the promisor's subsequent agreement to pay for the service, considering the material benefit received.
3. Rule
* Boothe v. Fitzpatrick :
It is well settled that a moral obligation is a sufficient consideration to support a subsequent promise to pay where the promisor has received a material benefit, although there was no original duty or liability resting on the promisor.
4. Application
The plaintiff asserted that McGowin should fulfill his promise to compensate the plaintiff for preventing his death or serious bodily harm. The defendant countered that the plaintiff's actions occurred without prior request for performance, thus invalidating any contract. The court determined that the plaintiff's actions provided substantial benefits to McGowin, which could constitute consideration for a contract. Moreover, the plaintiff's actions helped prevent serious harm to McGowin, warranting compensation and forming sufficient consideration for a subsequent contract. The reason for continuing payment even after McGowin's death is that the plaintiff had provided services to McGowin before his death, benefiting from these services. These services included protecting McGowin's life and preventing serious harm, necessitating compensation. Therefore, McGowin's promise was deemed valid and enforceable.
5. Conclusion
Reversed and remanded.
(Caring for, improving, and preserving the promisor's property by a promisee, even without request, constitutes sufficient consideration for the promisor's subsequent agreement to pay for the service, considering the material benefit received.)
* Feedback
이 사건에서는 케이스는 offer acceptance 다 있는지만 consideration 여부로 다툼
A: money
B의detriment : 과거의 것은 X : detriment 없다. / 예외가 등장함. : / benefit
The plaintiff's consideration is providing the service of protecting McGowin's life and preventing serious harm. Conversely, the defendant's consideration is paying compensation for the plaintiff's service.
9. ALLEGHENY COLLEGE v. NATIONAL CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY BANK
New York Court of Appeal 246 N.Y. 369, 159 N.E. 173 (1927) CARDOZO, C. J.
1.Fact
In 1921, Mary Yates Johnston made a commitment to allocate $5,000 from her estate to be given to Allegheny College (the plaintiff) within 30 days of her passing, with the intention of establishing the Mary Yates Johnston Memorial Fund, a scholarship honoring her memory. She conveyed this instruction through a written letter to the executor of her estate. In 1923, she contributed $1,000 to the College for this purpose. However, in 1924, she notified the College of her decision to retract her commitment. Subsequently, following Johnston's demise, the College initiated legal proceedings against the executor of her will, National Chautauqua County Bank (the defendant), seeking to recover the remaining $4,000. The trial court ruled in favor of the Bank, a decision that was upheld by the appellate court. The College then appealed the decision.
2.Issue
Whether the subscription made by Mary Yates Johnston to Allegheny College constitutes a valid charitable donation.
3.Rule
* Williston, Contracts, §§ 90, 22a .: A bilateral agreement may exist though one of the mutual promises be a promise ‘implied in fact,’ an inference from conduct as opposed to an inference from words.
* Williston, Contracts, §§ 139 : there has grown up of recent days a doctrine that a substitute for consideration or an exception to its ordinary requirements can be found in what is styled ‘a promissory estoppel.’
4. Application
The plaintiff contends that Mary Yates Johnston promised a specific donation to Allegheny College and that the college must act accordingly. On the other hand, the defendant argues that Mary Yates Johnston’s donation promise is not valid. In evaluating the validity of the donation, the court applied the principle of mutual obligations arising from mutual assent. The court interpreted Mary Yates Johnston’s conditional donation promise as creating an obligation based on mutual agreement, especially considering that the college had already received some of the donation. Consequently, the court found that the college was obligated to maintain the Mary Yates Johnston Memorial Fund and take actions to honor her memory.
5.Conclusion
Reversed. (The subscription made by Mary Yates Johnston to Allegheny College constitutes a valid charitable donation.)
*Feedback
9번케이스 detriment.
A: money
B fund establish, subscription
1000불 보낸 후( acceptance)
( acceptance 있을때 계약성립있다면 .) 성립 후 계약 cancel하겠다는 의미.
consideration여부에 따라 달라짐.
중요한 계약 -문서로 하도록
Marriage
Y 1year이상 걸리는 계약.
Land 부동산
Executory 유언집행자
Goods 500불 이상 제품
S 제 3자에 대한 계약.
Trust 설립한 사람.
신탁인이 수탁인에게 의뢰. Trustee 는 trust운영. 운영 수수료 받음.
10. KATZ v. DANNY DARE, INC.
Missouri Court of Appeals 610 S.W.2d 121 (1980)
1.Fact
Katz, who worked for Danny Dare, Inc., was injured while trying to prevent a theft at the workplace. Following this incident, Dare engaged Katz in discussions about retiring early, offering a pension as an incentive. Katz eventually agreed and retired at the age of 67. Initially, Dare began disbursing the retirement benefits as agreed upon, but ceased payments after approximately three years. Katz, feeling entitled to the pension, initiated legal proceedings. The initial court ruling favored Dare, stating Katz lacked legal entitlement to the pension. Subsequently, Katz appealed this decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals, seeking a reversal of the judgment.
2.Issue
whether Katz can enforce Dare's promise of pension payments through the application of Promissory Estoppel.
3.Rule
§ 90 of the Restatement of the Law of Contracts : There are three elements to be satisfied to invoke the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. These are: (1) a promise; (2) a detrimental reliance on such promise; and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
4.Application
Katz asserts that Dare failed to fulfill its promise of providing him with pension paymnets, thus invoking the principles of promissory Estoppel to demand the pension payments. Dare contends that it did fulfill its promise to privide Kats with pension payments and argues that the benefits Katz actually recieved were already sufficient. The court affirmed Katz’s ability to enforce Dare’s promise under the principles fo Promissory Estoppel. It acknowleged that Katz accepted Dare’s pension promise, retired, and suffered actual harm, thus recognizint the potential unfairness if he were not compensated for his losses. Moreover, the court considered Katz’s volutary retirement, independent of any threats from Dare, and Dare’s efforts to provide the pension without resorting to termination or litigation. Consequently, the court determined that pension payments were necessarty for Katz.
5.Conclusion
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to enter judgment in all suits in favor of Katz for the amount of unpaid pension. ( Katz can enforce Dare's promise of pension payments through the application of Promissory Estoppel.)
*Feedback
하루에 70페이지 읽어낼 수 있는 능력 되어야. 몇 만페이지 읽어야 실무 가능.
Kats가 소송제기한 이유는? Fact 에 대한 다툼 없다는 것은 의견일치라는 의미. Apply가 문제가 된다.
FACT: 연금 받기로 했는데 중단한 사실 – breach of contract.
Breach of contract? 회사는 계약위반이 아니라고 봄. 원고는 계약위반이라고 봄.
이것이 이슈.
근거는? 계약이 성립되었다 아니다.
Contract formation이 안되었다. 왜?
Promissory estoppel?
예외를 따지는 fact다.
소송에서 1순위 강행법규 : binding law, primary law. – case , statutes
강행법규 아닐 때 임의법규 : non-binding , secondary law.
미국에서 법 찾는 것이 오래 걸리고 중요함. 자기 주, 타 주, 연방법, 이슈 케이스 … 그 중에서 무엇을 제출하는가. 판결문에 인용된 것들.. 검색어를 쳐서 찾음 ..
Breach of contract 계약성립여부. Consideration 여부, detriment 여부,
11. MID-SOUTH PACKERS, INC. v. SHONEY’S INC
1. Fact
During an April 1982 meeting, Mid-South Packers, Inc. presented Shoney’s, Inc. with a proposal letter outlining prices and terms for meat supply. Shoney’s began purchasing meat from Mid-South based on purchase orders and paid invoices accordingly. Mid-South later informed Shoney’s of a price increase, to which Shoney’s continued placing orders and paying the increased prices. However, on the final order, Shoney’s offset the invoice amount by the difference between the original and increased prices paid on previous orders. Mid-South sued to recover this offset amount, and the district court granted Mid-South’s motion for summary judgment. Shoney’s appealed the decision.
2.Issue
Whether the terms outlined in Mid-South's invoices, including interest and attorney's fees provisions, became part of the contract between Mid-South and Shoney's.
3.Rule
* Uniform Commercial Code § 2-205 : a firm offer is irrevocable despite a lack of consideration "during the time stated or if no time is stated for a reasonable time; but in no event may such period of irrevocability exceed three (3) months."
* Willard, Sutherland & Co. v. United States : an essential element of a requirements contract is the promise of the buyer to purchase exclusively from the seller either the buyer's entire requirements or up to a specified amount.
4.Application
The plaintiff's contention is that Mid-South's proposal letter constituted a valid and substantial contract, while each purchase order was considered a separate contract. The defendant argued that Shoney's acceptance of Mid-South's proposal formed a contract. However, the court, considering that Mid-South's proposal did not form a long-term requirements contract, concluded that each purchase order formed a separate contract. This indicates that Shoney's did not accept Mid-South's proposal, but rather, a new contract was created with each order. Additionally, the interest and attorney's fees provisions in Mid-South's invoices were deemed part of the contract, obligating Shoney's to pay them.
5.Conclusion
Affirmed. (The terms outlined in Mid-South's invoices, including interest and attorney's fees provisions, became part of the contract. )
*Feedback
계약성립여부, consideration여부
Offer의 성격은 숫자가 구체적으로 나오고, 기간 구체적으로 정하고, 상대방이 정해져 있어야함.
그래야 offer 그렇지 않으면 법적 구속력 없는 proposal.
예외 있음. requirement에서 예외 정함.
매매계약성립! 되었는가? 계약 있었음.
가격 인상한 부분에 대한 다툼 있음. 가격인상에 대해 다투는 것의 법적성질.
새로운 계약인가 아니면 계약 변경인가? 계속적 거래 관계냐 하나씩 별개의 거래 관계냐.
Requirement contract 주장하는 사람- 새로운 계약이냐 계약 변경이냐 : 계약변경: 기존 계약 연장. 가격인상 못함.
Firm offer 주장.- 4월 17일 가격 인상 안한다는 약속. 별개의 계약이라면 이 약속은 3개월 이상 못감. 7월 17일 지나면 효력 없음.
8월 몇 일 날 가격인상은 OK
Requirement contract 안한걸로 보면 가격인상도 단독계약.
12. BROWN MACHINE, INC. v. HERCULES, INC.
Missouri Court of Appeals 770 S.W. 2d 416 (1989)
1.Fact
Upon receiving a quotation from Brown, Hercules submitted a purchase order with its own terms, lacking an indemnity provision. Brown, however, included an indemnity provision in the order acknowledgment. Despite the equipment being delivered and paid for, an incident occurred, leading to a lawsuit against Brown by a Hercules employee. Brown sought reimbursement based on the indemnity provision, which Hercules disputed. The trial court favored Brown, awarding damages, leading Hercules to appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
2.Issue
Whether Hercules agreed to include an indemnification provision in the contract with Brown Machine.
3.Rule
*RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 59 (1981) expresses it succinctly: “An offeree’s reply which purports to accept an offer but makes acceptance conditional on the offeror’s assent to terms not contained in the original offer is effective as a counteroffer rather than acceptance.”
*Under § 2-207(2), additional terms become a part of the contract between merchants unless (a) the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) they materially alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is given
4.Application
The plaintiff’s contention was that Hercules did not agree to a contract with Brown Machine including the indemnification provision, while the defendant argued that Hercules did agree to the provision. Hercules’ purchase order explicitly limited acceptance to the terms stated therein, stating “this order expressly limits acceptance to the terms stated herein,” Therefore, the additional provisions, the indemnification clause, was not considered part of the contract as per Hercules’ purchase order. Consequently, the court, applying U.C.C Section 2-207, concluded that since the additional provision did not the original terms proposed, Hercules’ purchase order constituted an offer, and thus the indemnification provision was not part of the contract.
5.Conclusion
REVERSED.( Hercules did not agree to include an indemnification provision in the contract with Brown Machine.)
*Feedback
Fact를 변호사로서 이야기하려면 결론부터 이야기하기.
면책계약을 언제 맺었나.
1975년 2월 5일에 최종적으로 보내고,
Parapgragh8. Immunity of liability clarify..
계약서 8조에 면책조항이 있다.
->계약의 일부가 아니라고 피고가 주장.
Parapgragh16 의외 조항은 효력이 없다. ?
->피고는 이 조항이 accepted되었다고 함.
여기에 대해서 Parapgragh8 이 계약에 포함되는지 여부가 문제가 됨.
offer에서 없다가 accepted에 들어간 경우 가능한가?
Common law에 따르면 accepted될 경우 달라지면 counter offer임..
2-207의1항.
법원의 파단은? 2-207에 의해서.
13. MCINTOSH v. MURPHY
1.Fact
On April 25, 1964, George Murphy verbally offered Dick McIntosh a job as assistant manager at a Honolulu car dealership, with work to commence on April 27, 1964. McIntosh accepted, relocating to Honolulu and rejecting other job offers. However, after two and a half months, Murphy terminated McIntosh's employment due to his inability to close deals. McIntosh then sued Murphy for breach of contract and was awarded $12,103.40 in damages by the jury. Murphy appealed the decision, arguing that the Statute of Frauds renders oral contracts exceeding one year unenforceable.
2. Issue
The issue is whether the oral employment contract violates the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.
3. rule
* section 217A of the Second Restatement of Contracts
(1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promise or a third person and which does induce the action or forbearance is enforceable notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach is to be limited as justice requires.
(2) In determining whether injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise, the following circumstances are significant: (a) the availability and adequacy of other remedies, particularly cancellation and restitution; (b) the definite and substantial character of the action or forbearance in relation to the remedy sought; (c) the extent to which the action or forbearance corroborates evidence of the making and terms of the promise, or the making and terms are otherwise established by clear and convincing evidence; (d) the reasonableness of the action or forbearance; (e) the extent to which the action or forbearance was foreseeable by the promisor.
4. application
Plaintiff Dick McIntosh seeks damages from defendants George Murphy and Murphy Motors, Ltd. for the alleged breach of an oral employment contract spanning one year, while the defendants argue that such oral agreement violates the statute of frauds. However, the court accepted the plaintiff's claim, ruling that even if the oral employment contract breached the statute of frauds, the plaintiff's actions, relying on the defendants' promise and suffering unjust loss as a result, warranted enforcement of the contract. (The court applied Section 217A(1) of the Restatement of Contracts to determine whether the promise could be enforced despite the Statute of Frauds.) Based on this determination, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff and finalized the judgment.
5. conclusion
Affirmed. (Despite the oral nature of the contract, it can be enforced due to the circumstances outlined in Section 217A of the Restatement of Contracts.)
* Feedback
MCINTOSH 부당해고 주장, MURPHY는 회사입장.
1964년 4월 27일 월요일, 시작일로 싸움.
끝난건 언제? 1965년 4월 25일. 토, 1년인지 아닌지로 싸움.
이 계약들은 Writing 으로 해야함.
M
Y
L
G
E
S
만약 1년계약인데 3개월만에 해고되면 injustice인가? 강제 이행 못함. 정당해고..? 부당해고면 injustice
consideration없을 때. reasonable하게 induce시켜야하는 이유는 안 나왔음. 사기 방지법 ..
14. COHN v. FISHER
New Jersey Supreme Court 118 N.J. Super. 286, 287 A.2d 222 (1972)ROSENBERG, J.C.C. (temporarily assigned).
1.Fact
Donal Fisher (defendant) verbally consented to buy a sailboat from Albert Cohn (plaintiff) for $4, on a Sunday,. The next day, the two met, and Fisher issued a check for $2,325 to Cohn. The check had a note stating it was a "Deposit on aux. sloop, D’Arc Wind, full amount $4,650." They agreed to meet the following Saturday to finalize the deal. During the week, Fisher informed Cohn that the closing couldn't happen on Saturday due to a delay in conducting a boat survey. Cohn insisted on closing the deal that weekend. Subsequently, Fisher halted payment on the deposit check and declined to proceed with the purchase. Cohn later sold the sailboat for $3,000. He sued Fisher for the price difference and the expenses related to the resale. Cohn sought summary judgment from the trial court.
2.Issue
Whether the notation on the back of the defendant's check, stating the name of the boat ("D'Arc Wind") and the full purchase amount ($4,650), satisfied the Statute of Frauds.
3.Rule
*N.J.S.A. 12A:2-201 (exclusive of those sections dealing with merchants) are:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.
*N.J.S.A. 12A:2-201(3) (c) provides that although the requirements of N.J.S.A. 12A:2-201(1) have not been met, an otherwise valid contract will be held enforceable with respect to goods (1) for which payment has been made and accepted, or (2) which have been received and accepted
4. Application.
The plaintiff alleges the existence of a boat sale contract with the defendant, claiming that the defendant breached the contract and thereby caused damages. Additionally, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's issued check can serve as valid evidence of the contract. The defendant denies the existence of the contract and argues against the check being considered as proof of the contract. Furthermore, even if a contract existed, the defendant contends that it was conditional upon a boat inspection. The court accepted the plaintiff's claims and rejected those of the defendant. The court deemed the notation on the check to encompass the essential elements of the contract, thus validating it as evidence of the contract's existence. Additionally, the court considered the defendant's issued check as partial performance of the contract, further substantiating its validity.
5. Conclusion
The court rules in favor of the plaintiff, granting summary judgment for breach of contract against the defendant. Damages of $1,679.50 are awarded, covering resale and incidental damages, as the resale was conducted fairly and met statutory requirements. (The notation on the back of the defendant's check, which included the name of the boat ("D'Arc Wind") and the full purchase amount ($4,650), satisfied the Statute of Frauds.)
*Feedback
(미국 중고차는 마일리지 다 바꿈. 의자를 봐야함.
자동차 딜러가 많이 속이고 신뢰도가 낮음.
도색 하는데 돈 얼마 안 듦. 1000달러 도색해서 10000달러 받음).
수표가 writing 되는가?
아파트 렌트, 전기료, 전화요금, 가스요금, 수표, 신용카드,
Acceptance, 계약일부 이행한 것도 acceptance.
계약을 맺지 않은 당사자에게 도움을 주기 위한 것이다.
피고가 구두 계약했다고 주장. Fisher가 구두계약 주장.
구두계약 당한 사람 보호.
Statutes of fraud. – 500불 이상 계약 문서로해야 함. 그렇지 않으면 사기 가능성 있음.
문서로 해야 한다는 것은 누구를 보호?
손해배상 – 계약금액 + sold 된 금액.
Summary judgement – material fact..재판 할 사건 못된다고 하면서 재판 열리기 전에 판사의 간단한 판결로 기각 시켜달라고 하는 것.
15. C&J FERTILIZER, INC. v. ALLIED MUTUAL INSURANCE CO
1.Fact
C & J Fertilizer, Inc. (CJ) had burglary insurance with Allied Mutual Insurance Co. (Allied), which excluded burglaries without visible marks of forced entry. Allied's representative visited CJ's premises but didn't mention the specific requirement of visible marks. CJ's president, aware of the provision but not recalling its specifics, reviewed the policy. Later, CJ's premises were burglarized, showing tire tracks and evidence of burglary inside but no visible marks outside. CJ suffered a $10,000 loss, but Allied refused coverage. CJ sued, alleging Allied's failure to disclose the visible marks requirement. Despite CJ's knowledge of the provision, the trial court ruled in favor of Allied, leading CJ to appeal.
2.Issue
Whether the provisions of the insurance policy, specifically defining "burglary," were reasonably understood by the plaintiff and whether they aligned with the plaintiff's expectations and the common understanding of burglary is a central issue in this case.
3.Rule
*comment F to Section 237 of Restatement (Second) of Contracts : Although customers typically adhere to standardized agreements and are bound by them without even appearing to know the standard terms in detail, they are not bound to unknown terms which are beyond the range of reasonable expectation.
*The rule of selective elimination of unconscionable provisions is articulated in the tentative draft of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts: If a contract or term thereof is unconscionable at the time the contract is made a court may refuse to enforce the contract, or may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable term, or may so limit the application of any unconscionable term as to avoid any unconscionable result. . . .
4.Application
The plaintiff's claim is that the insurance contract includes undisclosed provisions that exceed reasonable expectations and restrict insurance claims, while the defendant contends that the contract terms are clearly defined and that the defendant has adequately fulfilled the contract.
The court considered evidence that the defendant’s representative explained the need for “visible evidence of burglary” at the time of insurance enrollment but failed to clarify the significance of the marks specified in the policy. Additionally, the plaintiff was unaware of undisclosed subtle provisions in the policy, which the court recognized as exceeding reasonable expectations. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that the unfair provisions of the contract violated implicit warranties by infringing upon the plaintiff’s expectations with obscure clauses. To avoid unjust outcomes stemming from unfair provisions, the court decided to limit the application of such clauses, aiming to achieve a fair result.
5.Conclusion
Reverse and remand. (The plaintiff did not fully understand the nuanced provisions of the policy, and the definition of burglary included in the policy exceeded reasonable expectations, as determined by the court.)
*Feedback
보험사와 보험계약자와의 관계.
특수한 관계인정 – 동일하게 적용.
사인하던지 포기하던지 해라. / 사인하던지 아니면 떠나라..
미국에서 발레파킹 함부로 하면 안됨.
보험회사의 항변은?
채무부존재입장을 먼저 제기해버리는 경우들이 있음. 보험회사들이.
이 사건에서는 원고가 정책의 미묘한 규정을 충분히 이해하지 못하였고,
정책에 포함된 절도죄의 정의가 법원이 판단한 바와 같이 합리적인 기대를 초과하였다고 판단하였음.
16. THOMPSON v. LIBBY
Minnesota Supreme Court 34 Minn. 374, 26 N.W. 1 (1885)
1.Fact
Thompson (plaintiff) consented to vend logs he possessed to Libby (defendant). Subsequently, the accord was documented by a written agreement. This documented agreement did not entail any assurance, inclusive of a guarantee pertaining to the caliber of the logs. Thompson initiated legal action, and the case proceeded to trial. The trial tribunal allowed Libby to present testimony to establish an oral warranty.
2.Issue
Whether oral testimony can be admitted to prove a specific quality warranty despite the lack of mention of such warranty in the written contract for the sale of the logs.
3.Rule
*Jones v. Alley, 17 Minn. 269, (292). : That in case of a sale of personal property a warranty of its quality is an item and term of the contract of sale, and not a separate and independent collateral contract, and therefore cannot be added to the written agreement by oral testimony, has been distinctly held by this court, in accordance, not only with the great weight of authority, but also, as we believe, with the soundest principles.
4.Application
The plaintiff’s contention was that despite the absence of a specific quality warranty in the written contract, the defendant purportedly made a quality warranty at the time of sale, and thus oral testimony was allowed to prove it. The defendant argued that oral testimony was necessary to prove the existence of the oral quality warranty. The court articulated the principle that oral tetimony is not admissible when a written contract is deemed to represent a complete agreement. This occurs when the parties intend to fully document their agreement in writing, and the writing is considered to encompass all essential terms of the contract. Therefore, the court concluded that allowing oral testimony to prove the quality warranty was erroneous based on these principles.
5.Conclusion
The court erred in admitting parol evidence of a warranty, and therefore the order refusing a new trial must be reversed. (The court ruled that oral testimony cannot be admitted to prove a specific quality warranty when it is not mentioned in the written contract for the sale of the logs.)
*Feedback
Implied warranty
계약조항 warranty : 약속=계약.
5년 10만키로 보장 express 중고차 샀는데 시동안걸림 – 배터리 없음.
자동차라면 배터리 있어야 함.
대부분 금속이라고 믿음. Reasonable expectation.
Written contract있어야. promise있어야( warranty, condition등),
Written contract과 verbal promise내용이 충돌하면
written이 이김.