United States contract law - Knowledge (XXG)

966:

Betty's response is a rejection of Alan's offer but gives Alan a new power of acceptance. It is possible to phrase what appears to be a counteroffer so that it does not destroy the original power of acceptance. For example, Alan says to Betty, "I'll sell you my watch for $ 10." Betty responds, "I wonder whether you would take $ 8." Betty retains her original power of acceptance (unless Alan revokes), but she does not give Alan a new power of acceptance, as she is not making an offer of her own. Therefore, she is not making a counteroffer either. As such, mere inquiries are not counteroffers.

1439:

agreed to. At common law, only the essential terms were required in the signed writing. Under the UCC, the only term that must be present in the writing is the quantity. The writing also does not need to be one document, but if there are multiple documents, they must all obviously refer to the same transaction, and they all must be signed. The signature itself does not need to be a full name. Any mark made with the intent to authenticate the writing is satisfactory, such as initials or even such as an X by an illiterate party.

1083:

dispute arising from the transaction be resolved by arbitration. Brown does not sign and return Smith's form, but Smith goes ahead and fulfills the order. Brown receives the widgets and pays for them. The forms do not agree as to the term of arbitration. Therefore, if a dispute arises, the arbitration clause is not part of the contract. Instead, a UCC gap-filling provision is used. Since the Code does not supply arbitration, Brown is able to avoid Smith's term and bring an action in court.

997:. When the proviso is not used, the terms of the contract are determined by subsection 2. When the proviso is used, but there is no assent by the original offeror to the offeree's varied terms, yet the parties go ahead and perform (act like they have a contract, hence a contract implied in fact), the terms of the contract are determined by subsection 3. So, the terms of a contract under 2-207 are never determined by a combination of subsections 2 and 3. 1596:

price they agreed to was $ 10. The actual value of the watch is $ 15. Pam would be able to successfully pursue a claim for $ 5. She might elect this route if she did not want to keep the watch but sell it to a third party for a profit. Alternatively, Pam could successfully pursue a claim whereby the court would order Dan to sell the watch for the original price. She might elect this route if she actually wanted the watch for herself.

3819: 39: 1294:

significance to the $ 1 bill itself, such as if it was the first dollar a person made in business and carries tremendous sentimental value, similar to the peppercorn rule. Fungible things do not have to be money, though. They can be grains stored in a silo, for example. One bushel of grain being exchanged for 100 bushels of the same grain would not be sufficient consideration.

1586:, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921) is a case about a builder who used the wrong kind of piping in the construction of a house and the homeowner refused to pay. The court held that the builder was entitled to payment, as he had substantially performed the work, but the builder was subject to a deduction in payment for the difference in the value of the home with the wrong piping. 1854:, promise to use reasonable efforts to generate license revenues properly implied in the contract. "The law has outgrown its primitive stage of formalism when the precise word was the sovereign talisman, and every slip was fatal.... A promise may be lacking, and yet the whole writing may be 'instinct with and obligation,' imperfectly expressed...." UCC 2-306(2) 1298:

for the paychecks that the company promised in the past, not knowing whether a pension lay in the future. He might have hoped to one day receive a pension, but the company did not promise one until his layoff. Note, in this situation, the employee may be able to prevail on a claim of promissory restitution, but there is no contract for lack of consideration.

1266:

to do in the first place. So, promising to refrain from committing a tort or crime is not a thing of value for purposes of consideration. This is known as the bargain theory of consideration and requires that the promises to exchange the things be reciprocally induced. This is especially important for the discussion of past consideration, below.

1614:, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (N.H. 1929) the plaintiff's hand was injured by electrical wiring, and the doctor promised surgery to give him a 100% good hand. The operation failed, and the plaintiff won damages to the value of what he expected to get, compared to what he had. However, he received no extra compensation for pain and suffering. 1891:, 263 NY 79 (1933) "In every contract there is an implied covenant that neither party shall do anything, which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party, to receive the fruits of the contract, which means that in every contract there exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." 1052:

apply. Typically, to show it, the merchant must be subjected to undue hardship and/or surprise as a result of the varied term, as measured by the industry involved. It is well established that disclaimer of warranty, indemnification, and arbitration are all clauses that do constitute material alterations.

1438:

Moreover, the writing for purposes of satisfying the statute of frauds does not need to be the actual contract. It might be a letter, memorializing and formalizing an oral arrangement already made over the phone. Therefore, the signed writing does not need to contain all of the terms that the parties

1082:

For example, the Brown Company (buyer) sends a purchase order to the Smith Company (seller) for 100 widgets. Brown's terms are silent as to arbitration. Smith sends an acknowledgement, making its acceptance of Brown's offer "expressly conditional" on Brown's assent to Smith's additional term that any

953:

In the case of options, the general rule stated above applies even when the offeror promises to hold the offer open for a certain period of time. For example, Alice says to Bob, "I'll sell you my watch for $ 10, and you can have a week to decide." Alice is free to revoke her offer during the week, as

1664:

Contracts implied in law differ from contracts implied in fact in that contracts implied in law are not true contracts. Contracts implied in fact are ones that the parties involved presumably intended. In contracts implied in law, one party may have been completely unwilling to participate, as shown

1595:

The primary remedy for breach of contract is expectation damages, or "benefit of the bargain." At law, this is monetary compensation. At equity, it can be specific performance or an injunction, among other things. For example, Dan and Pam have an enforceable contract for the sale of Dan's watch. The

1070:

When the parties begin to perform the contract, they form a contract implied in fact. The terms of that contract are determined by this subsection. They consist of those terms both forms agree on. Any pertinent term upon the forms do not agree are not part of the contract but instead are supplied by

1051:

The exceptions are (out of order): objection by the original offeror in advance; objection by the original offeror within a reasonable time after notice; and material alteration of the contract. The third exception, whether the additional terms materially alter the contract, is the most difficult to

961:

consideration (discussed below) to keep the offer open for a certain period of time, the offeror is not permitted to revoke during that period. For example, Alice offers to sell Bob her watch for $ 10. Bob gives Alice $ 1 to keep the offer open for a week. Alice is not permitted to revoke during the

1403:

Ordinarily, contracts do not have to be in writing to be enforceable. However, certain types of contracts do have to be reduced to writing to be enforceable, to prevent frauds and perjuries, hence the name statute of frauds, which also makes it not a misnomer (fraud need not be present to implicate

1265:

Consideration is something of value given by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor. Typical examples of things of value are acts, forbearances, and/or promises to do so. The latter referring to those things that a party has a legal privilege

965:

A counteroffer is a new offer that varies the terms of the original offer. Therefore, it is simultaneously a rejection of the original offer. For example, Alan says to Betty, "I'll sell you my watch for $ 10." At this point Betty has the power of acceptance. But Betty responds, "I'll only pay $ 8."

1442:

A contract that may otherwise be unenforceable under the statute of frauds may become enforceable under the doctrine of part performance. If the party seeking enforcement of the contract has partially or fulfilled its duties under the contract without objection from the other party, the performing

1297:

Past acts cannot constitute consideration. For example, an employer lays off an employee but promises to give him a pension in exchange for his long and faithful service to the company. It is impossible for the employee to presently promise to have worked all those years for the pension. He worked

1008:

terms. A minority of states, led by California, infer that this was a typographical error by the drafters. As such, those states treat different terms in the same manner as additional terms. The majority rule, however, is that different terms do not become part of the contract; rather, both of the

1293:

things. For example, $ 1 is ordinarily sufficient consideration, and $ 100 is ordinarily sufficient consideration. However, if Alan and Betty agree to exchange $ 1 for $ 100, it would not be an enforceable contract for lack of consideration. An exception to this exception is when there is special

992:

of acceptance...operates as" an acceptance, even though it varies the terms of the original offer. Such an expression is typically interpreted as an acceptance when it purports to accept and agrees on the following terms of the original offer: subject matter, quantity, and price. However, such an

949:

An offer is a display of willingness by a promissor to be legally bound by terms they specify, made in a way that would lead a reasonable person in the promisee's position to understand that an acceptance is being sought and, if made, results in an enforceable contract. Ordinarily, an offeror is

1430:

In many states lifetime contracts are not considered to fall within the Statute of Frauds reasoning that life can end at any time, certainly within one year from the time of execution. In other states, notably Illinois, contracts requiring performance for a lifetime are covered by the Statute.

1660:

The terms quasi-contract and contract implied in law are synonymous. There are two types of quasi-contract. One is an action in restitution. The other is unjust enrichment. Note, therefore, that it is improper to say that quasi-contract, implied in law contract, and unjust enrichment are all

1703:

The full name of this cause of action is "restitution for actions required to preserve another's life or health." It is available when a party supplies goods or services to someone else, even though the recipient is unaware or does not consent. Unawareness and non-consent can both be due to

1376:, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917) articulates the idea that a promise may be lacking explicitly in a contract, but the whole writing may still create the obligation. Thus, a promise to use reasonable efforts to create profits for another is valid consideration and creates a contract. 1059:

For example, a buyer sends a purchase order with its own terms. The seller sends an acknowledgement with additional and/or different terms and uses the proviso. The buyer must accept the seller's additional and/or different terms, or else no contract is formed at that time.

1622:, 936 F.2d 692 (Second Cir. 1991) is a case discussing the extent and nature of contract damages. Damages for breach of contract are generally to provide damages for the injured party's loss; an injured party is not awarded damages based on the breaching party's gain. 1463:

The last exception applies up to the quantity admitted, which may include the entire contract. This reversed the rule at common law that permitted a defendant to testify that he indeed contracted with the plaintiff but refuses to perform because it is not in writing.

1368:, 58 P.2d 549 (OK 1936) mutuality of obligation, and an illusory promise. It was not illusory to promise to buy all sand from one supplier, even though there was no contractual obligation to buy any sand at all. This meant there was sufficient mutuality of obligation. 1055:

UCC § 2-207(3) only applies when the proviso language from subsection 1 is used. When the proviso is used, there is no contract formed at that time unless the original offeror assents to the terms that the party purporting to accept has made "expressly conditional."

1434:

The statute of frauds requires the signature of the party against whom enforcement is sought (the party to be sued for failure to perform). For example, Bob contracts with the Smith Company for two years of employment. The employer would need to sign the writing.

1652:(which has been interpreted to cover all contracts arising under federal or state law), arbitration clauses are generally enforceable unless the party resisting arbitration can show unconscionability, fraud or something else that undermines the entire contract. 3252: 1101:

had ended, and so that prices would rise (because a navy embargo was lifted). Even though the buyer stayed silent about the peace treaty that had just been agreed when he was asked if prices might rise, he was entitled to enforce the

1078:

Note that whether the parties are merchants is irrelevant for this subsection. However, private parties do not typically send and receive purchase orders or invoices, so in hypotheticals, the parties typically are merchants.

2628:, 117 N.E. 807 (1917) Cardozo J held a daughter was entitled to enforce a promise by her father to her husband to pay her instalments of money, because she had knowledge of the promise. There was sufficient "consideration". 300: 1694:, 6 N.H. 481 (1834) an employee who left work on a farm after nine months, but had contracted to be paid $ 120 at the end of one year, was entitled to receive some payment ($ 95) even though the contract was not completed. 1344:, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891) promising to not behave anti-socially amounted to valid consideration for a contract, in this case payment of money by an uncle to a nephew to not swear, drink, gamble and smoke. 1352:, Ala. Sup. 8 Ala. 131 (1845) is a case standing for the principle that a gratuitous gift or a conditional gift is not valid consideration. A woman had to visit a home to receive a gift, which is not consideration. 781:

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties creating reciprocal obligations enforceable at law. The elements of a contract are mutual consent, offer and acceptance, consideration, and legal purpose.

1286:. Love and affection, for example, would not constitute sufficient consideration, but a penny would. However, sufficient consideration that is grossly inadequate may be deemed unconscionable, discussed below. 1277:

of consideration, partially because in a capitalistic society private parties are entitled and expected to determine the value of things for themselves. In other words, the things being exchanged must have

769:. There remains significant diversity in the interpretation of other kinds of contracts, depending upon the extent to which a given state has codified its common law of contracts or adopted portions of the 1639:

Specific performance occurs when a court orders a party to perform a specific act. In the context of a contract, specific performance requires that a party in breach fulfill its duties under the contract.

1039:

A merchant is defined elsewhere in the UCC as a party that regularly "deals in goods of the kind" or otherwise gives an impression of knowledge or skill regarding the subject matter of the transaction. If

3335: 3245: 1599:

The remedy for quasi-contracts (contracts implied in law) is quantum meruit, the reasonable or "fair market" value of goods or services rendered. The remedy for promissory estoppel is reliance damages.

2649:, 382 P.2d 109 (Okl. 1962) there was no right to specific performance to cover up land again, given that the value was the same after it had been strip mined, whether it was covered with grass or not. 1618: 1110:, 127 Misc.2d 224 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984) it was held that it was not impossible to prove that a boy had agreed with the winner of $ 2.8m in a lottery that she would share the winnings with him 305: 3788: 3089: 969:

An acceptance is an agreement, by express act or implied from conduct, to the terms of an offer, including the prescribed manner of acceptance, so that an enforceable contract is formed.

3136: 2016: 993:

expression is not interpreted as an acceptance if it is "expressly conditional" on the original offeror's assent to the varied terms, discussed below. This language is known as the

1839:

Restatement §223, courts can supply a missing term by resorting to trade usage or course of dealing "which is fairly to be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding"

3861: 946:, as discussed below. At common law, the terms of a purported acceptance must be the "mirror image" of the terms of the offer. Any variation thereof constitutes a counteroffer. 976:, when the process of offer and acceptance is not followed, it is still possible to have an enforceable contract, as mentioned above with respect to contracts implied in fact. 2890:, 'Distributive and Paternalist Motives in Contract and Tort Law, with special reference to compulsory terms and unequal bargaining power' (1982) 41(4) Maryland Law Review 563 1305:

to breach of contract, requiring separate elements to be shown. It has the effect that in many contract like situations, the requirement of consideration need not be present.

3753: 3491: 1501: 519: 942:

Mutual consent, also known as ratification and meeting of the minds, is typically established through the process of offer and acceptance. However, contracts can also be

3169: 3150: 568: 3259: 1067:

accept the seller's terms, typically through silence, that is, not signing and returning the form to the seller. Subsection 3 is designed to deal with this situation.

693: 260: 3647: 3439: 2279: 4056: 3082: 1815:

a year for $ 50 a ton. The buyer could rely on custom of adjusting prices in the fertilizer industry despite the contract's express price, when the market fell.

1164: 754:

regulates the obligations established by agreement, whether express or implied, between private parties in the United States. The law of contracts varies from

3974: 3342: 1380: 950:

permitted to revoke their offer at any time prior to a valid acceptance. This is partially due to the maxim that an offeror is the "master of his offer."

3878: 3595: 2201: 1126:, 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002) simply clicking a download button does not indicate agreement to the terms of a contract if those terms were not conspicuous 840: 678:

3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions

2645: 1540: 3938: 3775: 1960: 1472:

Under the principle of privity, a person may not reap the benefits or be required to suffer the burdens of a contract to which they were not a party.

811: 3620: 3075: 4050: 3989: 3969: 3770: 3550: 3224: 3217: 1987: 1752: 1665:

below, especially for an action in restitution. There has been no mutual assent, in other words, but public policy essentially requires a remedy.

1336:, 322 A.2d 630 (RI 1974) modification of a contract does not require consideration if the change is made in good faith and agreed by both parties. 3129: 2028:, Cal. App. LEXIS 634 (1990) Paramount's contract stipulating it would only pay for work if a $ 288m film earned a net profit was unconscionable. 1887: 2187: 3838: 3746: 2927: 2020:, 93 Utah 414 (1937) a contract clause limiting the time for allowing complaints about the delivery of a shipment of ketchup was unconscionable 1494: 1356: 1097:, 15 U.S. 178 (1817) the seller of tobacco was not entitled to get out of a contract to sell a load at a low price when it transpired that the 854: 738: 3984: 3873: 3432: 3266: 2935: 2040: 1819: 3979: 3933: 3915: 3793: 2916: 2393: 2326:, 132 U.S. 125 (1889) damages for misrepresentation of share sale did not entitle the buyer to get money as if the representation were true 2060: 758:

to state; there is nationwide federal contract law in certain areas, such as contracts entered into pursuant to Federal Reclamation Law.

4097: 3827: 2946: 878: 1919: 1777:

Restatement §213, parol evidence rule: a written agreement that is completely integrated discharges prior oral agreements in its scope.

3846: 2887: 2065: 1879: 866: 4046: 4031: 4009: 3999: 3739: 2848: 2367: 1973: 1932: 1487: 1157: 770: 3231: 2357:

1 R.I. 1 (1828) a contract to bet on the outcome of a Senate election was void, because it was contrary to public policy to gamble.

2499:

Baird, Douglas G.; Weisberg, Robert (September 1982). "Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of § 2-207".

1704:

unconsciousness, but the latter also includes incapacity, which in turn refers to mental incompetence and/or infancy (minority).

1289:

Moreover, things that ordinarily constitute sufficient consideration may be deemed insufficient when they are being exchanged for

4041: 4036: 4014: 3964: 3328: 3291: 3143: 2378: 1953: 1939: 1256: 1245: 762: 324: 288: 2009: 1946: 4061: 3923: 3851: 3783: 3366: 2958: 1770: 1582: 1661:

synonymous, because unjust enrichment is only one type of the broader category of quasi-contracts (contracts implied in law).

3868: 3446: 3307: 3273: 3000: 2228: 2151: 2131: 1846: 1372: 1217: 317: 1020:

if it directly contradicts the subject matter of a term present in the original offer. A term in a purported acceptance is

3959: 3803: 3394: 2166: 804: 1883:, 110 U.S. 108 (1884) there was an implied warranty of fitness for the Kellog Co to build a bridge for a railway company. 1803: 4026: 3856: 1150: 761:

The law governing transactions involving the sale of goods has become highly standardized nationwide through widespread

583: 173: 4004: 3893: 3484: 3050: 2284: 2209: 2032: 68: 2687:"The United States Federal Arbitration Act: a powerful tool for enforcing arbitration agreements and arbitral awards" 1229: 3695: 3425: 3188: 2095: 1926: 1858: 731: 682: 329: 1384:, 221 N.W.2d 609 (IA 1974) charitable subscriptions can be enforced without consideration or detrimental reliance. 1321:

for specific performance (as opposed to reliance damages), injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise.

4066: 3928: 3238: 2194: 2070: 1518: 1114: 1024:

if it contemplates a subject matter not present at all in the original offer. As already mentioned, subsection 2

988:("UCC") dispenses with the mirror image rule in § 2-207. UCC § 2-207(1) provides that a "definite and seasonable 578: 537: 449: 1118:, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) the click of a button accepting a license's terms on software counts as agreement 4021: 3762: 3640: 3161: 3122: 2271: 2235: 2090: 890: 797: 385: 98: 2712: 2002: 4076: 3883: 3477: 3380: 3353: 3280: 2827: 2373: 2215: 2080: 1912: 1872: 1745: 1736: 1711:

the supplier acts "unofficiously", that is, isn't interfering in the affairs of the recipient for no reason;

1649: 1626: 1550: 985: 913: 902: 766: 707: 558: 367: 217: 4071: 3579: 2921: 2388: 2345: 2124: 2112: 2085: 1717:

the goods or services are necessary to prevent the recipient from suffering serious bodily injury or pain;

283: 243: 168: 144: 126: 3818: 1726:

if the recipient is "extremely" mentally incompetent or young and objects, the non-consent is immaterial.

3557: 3388: 3032: 2878:, 'Force and the State: A Comparison of "Political" and "Economic" Compulsion' (1935) 35 Columbia LR 149 2839: 2624: 2302: 2024: 724: 711: 700: 573: 563: 507: 131: 2643:, 75 U.S. 557 (1869) jurisdiction of courts to award specific performance in the interests of justice; 2173: 2138: 1995: 1789: 3199: 3113: 3019: 2383: 2075: 1781: 1459:

under the UCC, the party against whom enforcement is being sought admits a certain quantity of goods.

1181: 937: 591: 428: 278: 157: 63: 58: 2180: 1315:

detrimental reliance by the promisee foreseeable to a reasonable person in the promissor's position;

3901: 3686: 3513: 3376: 2982: 2337: 2054: 1398: 973: 347: 238: 103: 83: 2884:, 'The History of the Public/Private Distinction' (1982) 130(6) University of Pennsylvania LR 1423 1980: 1013:. Any "gaps" resulting from the removal of these terms are "filled" by Article 2's "gap-fillers." 3808: 3613: 3588: 3498: 3314: 3005: 2965: 2590: 2551: 2516: 2481: 2442: 2353: 2158: 1570: 1364: 1348: 1205: 1122: 1106: 633: 596: 438: 410: 376: 269: 254: 248: 222: 2881: 2686: 1866: 1757: 1862: 1808: 1443:

party may be able to use its performance to hold the other party to the terms of the contract.

3715: 3706: 3631: 3509: 3037: 3024: 2973: 2962:, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) the US government's obligation to honor contracts with Native Americans. 2844: 2639: 1901: 1690: 1394: 490: 479: 200: 149: 140: 121: 78: 1648:

Parties are permitted to agree to arbitrate disputes arising from their contracts. Under the

3654: 3523: 3468: 3418: 3405: 2996: 2609: 2582: 2543: 2508: 2473: 2434: 2291: 1833: 1610: 1529: 1093: 513: 400: 395: 357: 352: 195: 178: 2869:

and WR Perdue, 'The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages' (1936) 46 Yale Law Journal 52-96

2205:, 331 N.W.2d 203 (1982) it transpired an illegal septic system had contaminated the ground. 1723:

the supplier has no reason to know that the recipient would not consent if they could; and,

1427:

For example, a two-year employment contract naturally cannot be performed within one year.

3798: 3661: 3321: 3300: 2940: 2398: 2322: 2252: 1686:

circumstances requiring the other to pay the fair value for the benefit to avoid inequity.

1559: 1340: 1332: 1302: 1241: 1193: 1130: 926: 516:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith) 405: 135: 112: 1417:

Consideration of marriage (not to actually get married but to give a dowry, for example)

1009:

conflicting terms—from both parties—are removed from the contract. This is known as the

917: 3676: 3541: 3530: 3361: 2777: 2461: 2422: 828: 710:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to 651: 542: 473: 458: 206: 53: 2534:

Horwitz, Morton J. (March 1974). "The Historical Foundations of Modern Contract Law".

4091: 3409: 2296: 442: 190: 163: 93: 2570: 1414:

Suretyships (promises to answer for the debts, defaults, or miscarriages of another)

3179: 3041: 3028: 2798: 2758: 646: 641: 628: 419: 73: 38: 2770: 1134:

2 Cai. R. 48 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1804) a contract was binding despite making a mistake

3943: 3046: 1098: 484: 390: 295: 212: 2872:

Goldberg, 'Institutional Change and the Quasi-Invisible Hand' (1974) 17 JLE 461

1360:, 15 S.W. 844 (1891) promising not to sue did not amount to valid consideration 17: 3207: 3014: 2986: 2951: 1479: 1318:

actual detrimental reliance by the promisee (worsening of their position); and

1282:

value in the eyes of the law, but the general rule is that courts do not care

755: 686: 669: 88: 3067: 3203: 2893: 2866: 2834: 2822: 2794: 1851: 1812: 1794: 1407:

Typically the following types of contracts implicate the statute of frauds:

637: 312: 3731: 2896:, 'Contracts of Adhesion – Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract' (1943) 3253:

Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.

2660: 2991: 2860: 1260: 1142: 467: 362: 185: 30: 2571:"Beyond Promissory Estoppel: Contract Law and the "Invisible Handshake"" 3009: 2902: 2897: 2594: 2555: 2520: 2307: 433: 2485: 2446: 1044:

parties are merchants then additional terms in a purported acceptance

3062: 2977: 2875: 2315: 2258: 2248: 789: 2586: 2547: 2512: 2613:, 114 N.C. App. 52 (1994) regarding formality and part performance. 2477: 2438: 1420:

Goods over a certain amount of money (usually $ 500, as in the UCC)

2311: 1799:

Restatement §203, trade usage non-excluded by parol evidence rules

1456:

Goods are specially manufactured (there is no market for them); or

1048:

become part of the contract unless any of three exceptions apply.

2423:"Offer and Acceptance, and Some of the Resulting Legal Relations" 3336:

Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court

3246:

In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation

2969: 2462:"ffer and Acceptance, and Some of the Resulting Legal Relations" 2306:

56 Wash 2d 449, 353 P2d 672 (Supreme Court of Washington, 1960)

1961:

Max True Plastering Co v United States Fidelty & Guaranty Co

623: 3735: 3071: 1714:

the supplier acts with the intent to charge money for doing so;

1483: 1146: 793: 2659:

Shimabukuro, Jon O.; Staman, Jennifer A. (20 September 2017).

613: 1619:

United States Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc.

1753:

Frigaliment Importing Company v BNS International Sales Corp

1888:

Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company et al

2863:, 'The Basis of Contract' (1933) 46 Harvard Law Review 553 2188:

Firestone & Parson, Inc v Union League of Philadelphia

2275:, 248 U.S. 132 (1918) superior knowledge of US government 3137:

Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.

2314:

not revealed to buyers. Even though no questions asked,

2017:

Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.

1063:

Frequently, however, the buyer in such a situation does

703:

both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces

2685:

Salomon, Claudia; de Villiers, Samuel (17 April 2014).

2661:"Mandatory Arbitration and the Federal Arbitration Act" 1820:

Southern Concrete Services v Mableton Contractors, Inc

1004:

terms. It does not explicitly address what to do with

2713:"The Concept of Benefit in the Law of Quasi-Contract" 3015:"Promise" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2569:

Farber, Daniel A.; Matheson, John H. (Autumn 1985).

1991:, 350 F2d 445 (DC 1965) procedural unconscionability 1000:

UCC § 2-207(2) of the statute tells what to do with

706:

7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American

3952: 3914: 3892: 3837: 3826: 3769: 3705: 3685: 3675: 3630: 3605: 3578: 3571: 3540: 3508: 3467: 3460: 3404: 3375: 3352: 3290: 3198: 3178: 3160: 3112: 3105: 2061:

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 2010

1683:

the other's acceptance or retention of the benefit;

3492:Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America 3170:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States 2782:Concepts and Case Analysis in the Law of Contracts 1423:Contracts that cannot be performed within one year 520:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law 3151:Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 2763:Contract Law: Selected Source Materials Annotated 1920:Moscatiello v Pittsburgh Contractors Equipment Co 3648:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States 3260:Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology 1411:Land, including leases over a year and easements 3440:G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States 2771:The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Contracts 2280:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States 1032:become part of the contract if either party is 1028:tell what to do with additional terms. They do 675:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions 2416: 2414: 3747: 3083: 2905:, 'Liberty of Contract' (1909) 18 Yale LJ 454 2810:Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials 1495: 1158: 805: 732: 8: 2287:gives the US government a duty of disclosure 3343:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 2646:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. 1954:Farm Bureau Mutual insurance Co v Sandbulte 1940:Darner Motor Sales v Universal Underwriters 1541:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. 1381:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 712:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation 3834: 3754: 3740: 3732: 3682: 3596:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly 3575: 3464: 3109: 3090: 3076: 3068: 2283:(160 Ct. Cl. 437, 312 F.2d 774 (1963) the 2202:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly 2010:Maxwell v Fidelity Financial Services, Inc 1947:Gordinier v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co 1707:The elements of this cause of action are: 1673:The elements of this cause of action are: 1502: 1488: 1480: 1165: 1151: 1143: 842:Hotchkiss v National City Bank of New York 812: 798: 790: 739: 725: 26: 1308:The elements of promissory estoppel are: 3621:SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 3130:Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino 954:long as Bob has not accepted the offer. 3551:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 3225:Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. 2410: 1988:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 1630:444 U.S. 507 (1980) restitution damages 855:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. US 659: 611: 550: 529: 499: 457: 418: 375: 339: 268: 230: 111: 45: 29: 2928:The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Company 1450:Goods have been received and accepted; 1357:Lingenfelder v. Wainwright Brewing Co. 508:Duty of honest contractual performance 3433:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 3267:Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc. 2936:Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 2318:still liable for failure to disclose. 2041:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 1680:the other's knowledge of the benefit; 696:of International Commercial Contracts 7: 2917:Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute 2808:CL Knapp, NM Crystal and HG Prince, 2394:Civil Procedure in the United States 2167:Nester v Michigan Land & Iron Co 1016:A term in a purported acceptance is 2947:Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild Inc. 2146:Mutual mistakes, shared assumptions 1804:Columbia Nitrogen Corp v Royster Co 1720:the recipient is unable to consent; 1453:Payment has been made and accepted; 957:However, if the offeree gives some 879:Ariz Cartridge Inc. v. Lexmark Inc. 685:and other civil codes based on the 3232:Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. 2460:Corbin, Arthur L. (January 1917). 2066:Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 1880:Kellogg Bridge Company v. Hamilton 1677:conferral of a benefit on another; 1301:Promissory estoppel is a separate 867:Lefkowitz v. Great Minn Store, Inc 25: 2368:Restatement (Second) of Contracts 1974:Restatement (Second) of Contracts 1933:Restatement (Second) of Contracts 1869:, breach of best efforts covenant 771:Restatement (Second) of Contracts 3817: 3367:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent 3329:King v. Trustees of Boston Univ. 3144:Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green 2666:. Congressional Research Service 2575:University of Chicago Law Review 2379:Uniform Commercial Code adoption 2210:Beachcomber Coins, Inc v Boskett 1583:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent 1257:Consideration under American law 510:(or doctrine of abuse of rights) 325:Enforcement of foreign judgments 289:Hague Choice of Court Convention 37: 2959:Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter 1771:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors 1230:Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 3447:Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton 3308:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon 3274:Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc. 3001:inequality of bargaining power 2229:Restatement, Second, Contracts 2152:Restatement, Second, Contracts 2132:Restatement, Second, Contracts 1847:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon 1373:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon 1312:an express or implied promise; 1273:, but courts do not weigh the 1218:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon 882:, 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) 318:Singapore Mediation Convention 1: 3804:Bill (United States Congress) 3395:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 2898:43(5) Columbia Law Review 629 2711:Sullivan, Timothy J. (1975). 2421:Corbin, A.L. (January 1917). 2162:66 Mich 568, 33 NW 919 (1887) 2128:, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 807 (2001). 1927:Pierce v Catalina Yachts, Inc 1859:Bloor v Falstaff Brewing Corp 1823:, 407 F Supp 581 (ND Ga 1975) 1446:No writing is required when: 692:5 Explicitly rejected by the 459:Quasi-contractual obligations 1756:, 190 FSupp 116 (SDNY 1960) 3485:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. 3051:principal and agent problem 2285:superior knowledge doctrine 2195:Everett v Estate of Sumstad 2033:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. 1915:§2-302, 2-314, 2-316, 2-719 1510:Cases on breach of contract 894:, 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (1999) 4114: 4098:United States contract law 3696:Drennan v. Star Paving Co. 3516:(unwritten & informal) 3426:Seixas and Seixas v. Woods 3189:Ellefson v. Megadeth, Inc. 3099:United States contract law 2246: 2243:Duress and undue influence 2110: 2096:U.S. Department of Justice 2052: 2036:, 622 F.Supp.2d 396 (2009) 1899: 1831: 1811:(4th 1971) 31,000 tons of 1568: 1519:Jacob & Youngs v. Kent 1392: 1254: 1139:Consideration and estoppel 935: 330:Hague Judgments Convention 3929:Law School Admission Test 3815: 3461:Defense against formation 3239:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg 2931:, forum selection clauses 2236:Chimart Associates v Paul 2071:Fair Credit Reporting Act 1557: 1548: 1537: 1526: 1515: 1238: 1226: 1214: 1202: 1190: 1178: 1115:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg 924: 911: 899: 887: 875: 863: 851: 837: 825: 681:4 Specific to the German 3763:Law of the United States 3641:United States v. Spearin 3162:Implied-in-fact contract 3123:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. 2939:, on the Constitution's 2750:I Ayres and RE Speidel, 2272:United States v. Spearin 2091:Federal Trade Commission 1404:the statute of frauds). 1209:, 127 Misc.2d 224 (1984) 891:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. 386:Anticipatory repudiation 136:unequal bargaining power 3478:Morrison v. Amway Corp. 3354:Substantial performance 3281:Feldman v. Google, Inc. 3063:Uniform Commercial Code 2922:forum selection clauses 2752:Studies in Contract Law 2374:Uniform Commercial Code 2295:15 U.S. 178 (1817), on 2216:Uniform Commercial Code 2102:Cancelling the contract 2081:Fair Credit Billing Act 2003:People v Two Wheel Corp 1913:Uniform Commercial Code 1873:Uniform Commercial Code 1746:Uniform Commercial Code 1737:Uniform Commercial Code 1650:Federal Arbitration Act 1551:Uniform Commercial Code 1185:, 226 S.W.2d 673 (1949) 986:Uniform Commercial Code 980:Uniform Commercial Code 914:Uniform Commercial Code 767:Uniform Commercial Code 708:Uniform Commercial Code 683:Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 368:Third-party beneficiary 340:Rights of third parties 218:Accord and satisfaction 2717:Georgetown Law Journal 2389:United States tort law 2346:SCO v. DaimlerChrysler 2223:Transcription mistakes 2113:Mistake (contract law) 2086:Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 1627:Snepp v. United States 1269:Consideration must be 1233:, 133 NW 2d 267 (1965) 1173:Cases on consideration 972:In what is known as a 903:Shuey v. United States 832:, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954) 439:Liquidated, stipulated 284:Forum selection clause 169:Frustration of purpose 3558:Buchwald v. Paramount 3389:De Cicco v. Schweizer 3033:information asymmetry 2950:, on the validity of 2840:The Death of Contract 2625:De Cicco v. Schweizer 2025:Buchwald v. Paramount 1793:68 Cal 2d 222 (1968) 1221:, 118 N.E. 214 (1917) 870:, 86 NW 2d 689 (1957) 858:, 261 U.S. 592 (1923) 701:Canadian contract law 69:Abstraction principle 3939:Admission to the bar 3789:Separation of powers 3114:Offer and acceptance 3020:Arthur Linton Corbin 2812:(7th edn Aspen 2012) 2384:English contract law 2349:, license agreements 2125:Donovan v. RRL Corp. 2076:Truth in Lending Act 1896:Unconscionable terms 1850:, 118 NE 214 (1917) 1842:UCC §1-205 and 2-208 1635:Specific performance 1197:, 27 N.E. 256 (1891) 1182:Batsakis v. Demotsis 938:Offer and acceptance 530:Related areas of law 429:Specific performance 279:Choice of law clause 244:Contract of adhesion 158:Culpa in contrahendo 64:Meeting of the minds 59:Offer and acceptance 3879:International Trade 3687:Promissory estoppel 3572:Cancelling Contract 2983:Freedom of contract 2501:Virginia Law Review 2338:ProCD v. Zeidenberg 2118:Unilateral mistakes 2055:Consumer protection 2049:Consumer protection 2044:, 161 A2d 69 (1960) 1742:Restatement §201(1) 1399:Parol evidence rule 974:battle of the forms 694:UNIDROIT Principles 468:Promissory estoppel 348:Privity of contract 301:New York Convention 261:UNIDROIT Principles 104:Collateral contract 99:Implication-in-fact 84:Invitation to treat 3975:Child sexual abuse 3965:Administrative law 3809:United States Code 3771:Constitutional law 3614:Stoddard v. Martin 3589:Sherwood v. Walker 3499:McMichael v. Price 3315:Kirksey v. Kirksey 3218:Specht v. Netscape 3106:Contract formation 2966:Law of obligations 2803:Basic Contract Law 2536:Harvard Law Review 2354:Stoddard v. Martin 2303:Obde v. Schlemeyer 2159:Sherwood v. Walker 1571:Breach of contract 1476:Breach of contract 1365:McMichael v. Price 1349:Kirksey v. Kirksey 1206:Pando v. Fernandez 1123:Specht v. Netscape 1107:Pando v. Fernandez 846:, 200 F 287 (1911) 820:Cases on agreement 514:Duty of good faith 411:Fundamental breach 377:Breach of contract 306:UNCITRAL Model Law 270:Dispute resolution 255:Contra proferentem 249:Integration clause 223:Exculpatory clause 4085: 4084: 3910: 3909: 3865: 3729: 3728: 3725: 3724: 3716:Britton v. Turner 3707:Unjust enrichment 3671: 3670: 3632:Misrepresentation 3567: 3566: 3510:Statute of frauds 3456: 3455: 3038:Complete contract 3025:Adverse selection 2974:unjust enrichment 2640:Willard v. Tayloe 2265:Misrepresentation 2174:Griffith v Brymer 2154:§§151-152 and 154 2139:Speckel v Perkins 1996:Pittsley v Houser 1902:Unconscionability 1785:247 NY 377 (1928) 1691:Britton v. Turner 1669:Unjust Enrichment 1566: 1565: 1395:Statute of Frauds 1252: 1251: 933: 932: 906:, 92 US 73 (1875) 749: 748: 592:England and Wales 500:Duties of parties 491:Negotiorum gestio 480:Unjust enrichment 201:Statute of frauds 150:Unconscionability 122:Misrepresentation 79:Mirror image rule 16:(Redirected from 4105: 3985:Conflict of laws 3859: 3835: 3821: 3756: 3749: 3742: 3733: 3683: 3655:Laidlaw v. Organ 3576: 3524:Buffaloe v. Hart 3512:(written) & 3469:Illusory promise 3465: 3419:Hawkins v. McGee 3406:Implied warranty 3110: 3092: 3085: 3078: 3069: 2997:Bargaining power 2733: 2732: 2730: 2728: 2708: 2702: 2701: 2699: 2697: 2682: 2676: 2675: 2673: 2671: 2665: 2656: 2650: 2635: 2629: 2620: 2614: 2610:Buffaloe v. Hart 2605: 2599: 2598: 2566: 2560: 2559: 2531: 2525: 2524: 2507:(6): 1217–1262. 2496: 2490: 2489: 2466:Yale Law Journal 2457: 2451: 2450: 2427:Yale Law Journal 2418: 2292:Laidlaw v. Organ 2218:§§2-312 to 2-315 1834:Good faith (law) 1790:Masterson v Sine 1611:Hawkins v. McGee 1530:Hawkins v. McGee 1504: 1497: 1490: 1481: 1167: 1160: 1153: 1144: 1094:Laidlaw v. Organ 843: 814: 807: 800: 791: 741: 734: 727: 569:China (mainland) 538:Conflict of laws 401:Efficient breach 396:Exclusion clause 196:Illusory promise 179:Impracticability 41: 27: 21: 4113: 4112: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4081: 3980:Civil procedure 3948: 3906: 3888: 3829: 3822: 3813: 3799:Act of Congress 3773: 3765: 3760: 3730: 3721: 3701: 3667: 3662:Smith v. Bolles 3626: 3601: 3563: 3536: 3504: 3452: 3400: 3371: 3348: 3322:Angel v. Murray 3301:Hamer v. Sidway 3286: 3194: 3174: 3156: 3101: 3096: 3059: 2941:Contract Clause 2910:Contract theory 2787:EA Farnsworth, 2742: 2740:Further reading 2737: 2736: 2726: 2724: 2710: 2709: 2705: 2695: 2693: 2684: 2683: 2679: 2669: 2667: 2663: 2658: 2657: 2653: 2636: 2632: 2621: 2617: 2606: 2602: 2587:10.2307/1599520 2568: 2567: 2563: 2548:10.2307/1340045 2533: 2532: 2528: 2513:10.2307/1072802 2498: 2497: 2493: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2420: 2419: 2412: 2407: 2399:Contract theory 2364: 2333: 2323:Smith v. Bolles 2267: 2255: 2253:Undue influence 2247:Main articles: 2245: 2115: 2109: 2104: 2057: 2051: 1904: 1898: 1836: 1830: 1782:Mitchill v Lath 1774:, on warranties 1766: 1733: 1701: 1671: 1658: 1646: 1637: 1606: 1593: 1578: 1573: 1567: 1562: 1560:US contract law 1553: 1544: 1533: 1522: 1511: 1508: 1478: 1470: 1401: 1393:Main articles: 1391: 1341:Hamer v. Sidway 1333:Angel v. Murray 1328: 1303:cause of action 1263: 1255:Main articles: 1253: 1248: 1242:US contract law 1234: 1222: 1210: 1198: 1194:Hamer v. Sidway 1186: 1174: 1171: 1141: 1131:Seixas v. Woods 1089: 982: 944:implied in fact 940: 934: 929: 927:US contract law 920: 907: 895: 883: 871: 859: 847: 841: 833: 821: 818: 788: 779: 745: 716: 588:United Kingdom 551:By jurisdiction 23: 22: 18:US contract law 15: 12: 11: 5: 4111: 4109: 4101: 4100: 4090: 4089: 4083: 4082: 4080: 4079: 4074: 4069: 4064: 4059: 4054: 4044: 4039: 4034: 4029: 4024: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4007: 4002: 3997: 3992: 3990:Constitutional 3987: 3982: 3977: 3972: 3967: 3962: 3956: 3954: 3950: 3949: 3947: 3946: 3941: 3936: 3931: 3926: 3920: 3918: 3912: 3911: 3908: 3907: 3905: 3904: 3898: 3896: 3890: 3889: 3887: 3886: 3881: 3876: 3871: 3866: 3854: 3849: 3843: 3841: 3839:Federal courts 3832: 3824: 3823: 3816: 3814: 3812: 3811: 3806: 3801: 3796: 3791: 3786: 3780: 3778: 3767: 3766: 3761: 3759: 3758: 3751: 3744: 3736: 3727: 3726: 3723: 3722: 3720: 3719: 3711: 3709: 3703: 3702: 3700: 3699: 3691: 3689: 3680: 3677:Quasi-contract 3673: 3672: 3669: 3668: 3666: 3665: 3658: 3651: 3644: 3636: 3634: 3628: 3627: 3625: 3624: 3617: 3609: 3607: 3603: 3602: 3600: 3599: 3592: 3584: 3582: 3573: 3569: 3568: 3565: 3564: 3562: 3561: 3554: 3546: 3544: 3542:Unconscionable 3538: 3537: 3535: 3534: 3531:Foman v. Davis 3527: 3519: 3517: 3514:Parol evidence 3506: 3505: 3503: 3502: 3495: 3488: 3481: 3473: 3471: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3454: 3453: 3451: 3450: 3443: 3436: 3429: 3422: 3414: 3412: 3402: 3401: 3399: 3398: 3391: 3385: 3383: 3373: 3372: 3370: 3369: 3364: 3362:Lucy v. Zehmer 3358: 3356: 3350: 3349: 3347: 3346: 3339: 3332: 3325: 3318: 3311: 3304: 3296: 3294: 3288: 3287: 3285: 3284: 3277: 3270: 3263: 3256: 3249: 3242: 3235: 3228: 3221: 3213: 3211: 3196: 3195: 3193: 3192: 3184: 3182: 3176: 3175: 3173: 3172: 3166: 3164: 3158: 3157: 3155: 3154: 3147: 3140: 3133: 3126: 3118: 3116: 3107: 3103: 3102: 3097: 3095: 3094: 3087: 3080: 3072: 3066: 3065: 3058: 3057:External links 3055: 3054: 3053: 3044: 3035: 3022: 3017: 3012: 3003: 2994: 2989: 2980: 2963: 2955: 2943: 2932: 2924: 2912: 2911: 2907: 2906: 2900: 2891: 2885: 2879: 2873: 2870: 2864: 2857: 2856: 2852: 2851: 2832: 2831:(1890) chs 7-9 2828:The Common Law 2819: 2818: 2814: 2813: 2806: 2805:(9th edn 2013) 2801:and MP Gergen 2792: 2785: 2784:(6th edn 2010) 2778:MA Chirelstein 2775: 2766: 2757:SJ Burton and 2755: 2747: 2746: 2741: 2738: 2735: 2734: 2703: 2677: 2651: 2630: 2615: 2600: 2581:(4): 903–947. 2561: 2542:(5): 917–956. 2526: 2491: 2478:10.2307/786706 2472:(3): 169–206. 2452: 2439:10.2307/786706 2433:(3): 169–206. 2409: 2408: 2406: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2396: 2391: 2386: 2381: 2376: 2371: 2363: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2350: 2342: 2332: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2319: 2299: 2288: 2276: 2266: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2244: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2232: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2213: 2206: 2198: 2191: 2184: 2181:Wood v Boynton 2177: 2170: 2163: 2155: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2142: 2135: 2129: 2120: 2119: 2108: 2105: 2103: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2093: 2088: 2083: 2078: 2073: 2068: 2063: 2050: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2037: 2029: 2021: 2013: 2006: 1999: 1992: 1984: 1977: 1970: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1957: 1950: 1943: 1936: 1930: 1923: 1916: 1909: 1908: 1907:Interpretation 1900:Main article: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1884: 1876: 1870: 1855: 1843: 1840: 1829: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1816: 1800: 1797: 1786: 1778: 1775: 1765: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1749: 1743: 1740: 1732: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1724: 1721: 1718: 1715: 1712: 1700: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1678: 1670: 1667: 1657: 1656:Quasi-contract 1654: 1645: 1642: 1636: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1623: 1615: 1605: 1602: 1592: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1577: 1574: 1569:Main article: 1564: 1563: 1558: 1555: 1554: 1549: 1546: 1545: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1516: 1513: 1512: 1509: 1507: 1506: 1499: 1492: 1484: 1477: 1474: 1469: 1466: 1461: 1460: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1425: 1424: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1412: 1390: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1377: 1369: 1361: 1353: 1345: 1337: 1327: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1250: 1249: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1227: 1224: 1223: 1215: 1212: 1211: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1191: 1188: 1187: 1179: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1170: 1169: 1162: 1155: 1147: 1140: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1127: 1119: 1111: 1103: 1088: 1085: 981: 978: 936:Main article: 931: 930: 925: 922: 921: 918:2-204 to 2-207 912: 909: 908: 900: 897: 896: 888: 885: 884: 876: 873: 872: 864: 861: 860: 852: 849: 848: 838: 835: 834: 829:Lucy v. Zehmer 826: 823: 822: 819: 817: 816: 809: 802: 794: 787: 784: 778: 775: 747: 746: 744: 743: 736: 729: 721: 718: 717: 715: 714: 704: 699:6 Specific to 697: 690: 679: 676: 673: 668:1 Specific to 665: 662: 661: 657: 656: 655: 654: 649: 644: 631: 626: 618: 617: 609: 608: 607: 606: 601: 600: 599: 594: 586: 581: 576: 571: 566: 561: 553: 552: 548: 547: 546: 545: 543:Commercial law 540: 532: 531: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 511: 502: 501: 497: 496: 495: 494: 487: 482: 477: 474:Quantum meruit 470: 462: 461: 455: 454: 453: 452: 447: 446: 445: 431: 423: 422: 416: 415: 414: 413: 408: 403: 398: 393: 388: 380: 379: 373: 372: 371: 370: 365: 360: 355: 350: 342: 341: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 322: 321: 320: 310: 309: 308: 303: 293: 292: 291: 281: 273: 272: 266: 265: 264: 263: 258: 251: 246: 241: 239:Parol evidence 233: 232: 231:Interpretation 228: 227: 226: 225: 220: 215: 210: 207:Non est factum 203: 198: 193: 188: 183: 182: 181: 176: 171: 161: 154: 153: 152: 138: 129: 124: 116: 115: 109: 108: 107: 106: 101: 96: 91: 86: 81: 76: 71: 66: 61: 56: 48: 47: 43: 42: 34: 33: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4110: 4099: 4096: 4095: 4093: 4078: 4075: 4073: 4070: 4068: 4065: 4063: 4060: 4058: 4055: 4052: 4048: 4045: 4043: 4040: 4038: 4035: 4033: 4030: 4028: 4025: 4023: 4020: 4016: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4008: 4006: 4003: 4001: 3998: 3996: 3993: 3991: 3988: 3986: 3983: 3981: 3978: 3976: 3973: 3971: 3970:Child custody 3968: 3966: 3963: 3961: 3958: 3957: 3955: 3951: 3945: 3942: 3940: 3937: 3935: 3932: 3930: 3927: 3925: 3922: 3921: 3919: 3917: 3913: 3903: 3902:State supreme 3900: 3899: 3897: 3895: 3891: 3885: 3882: 3880: 3877: 3875: 3872: 3870: 3867: 3863: 3858: 3855: 3853: 3850: 3848: 3845: 3844: 3842: 3840: 3836: 3833: 3831: 3830:United States 3828:Courts of the 3825: 3820: 3810: 3807: 3805: 3802: 3800: 3797: 3795: 3792: 3790: 3787: 3785: 3782: 3781: 3779: 3777: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3757: 3752: 3750: 3745: 3743: 3738: 3737: 3734: 3718: 3717: 3713: 3712: 3710: 3708: 3704: 3698: 3697: 3693: 3692: 3690: 3688: 3684: 3681: 3678: 3674: 3664: 3663: 3659: 3657: 3656: 3652: 3650: 3649: 3645: 3643: 3642: 3638: 3637: 3635: 3633: 3629: 3623: 3622: 3618: 3616: 3615: 3611: 3610: 3608: 3604: 3598: 3597: 3593: 3591: 3590: 3586: 3585: 3583: 3581: 3577: 3574: 3570: 3560: 3559: 3555: 3553: 3552: 3548: 3547: 3545: 3543: 3539: 3533: 3532: 3528: 3526: 3525: 3521: 3520: 3518: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3501: 3500: 3496: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3487: 3486: 3482: 3480: 3479: 3475: 3474: 3472: 3470: 3466: 3463: 3459: 3449: 3448: 3444: 3442: 3441: 3437: 3435: 3434: 3430: 3428: 3427: 3423: 3421: 3420: 3416: 3415: 3413: 3411: 3410:caveat emptor 3407: 3403: 3397: 3396: 3392: 3390: 3387: 3386: 3384: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3368: 3365: 3363: 3360: 3359: 3357: 3355: 3351: 3345: 3344: 3340: 3338: 3337: 3333: 3331: 3330: 3326: 3324: 3323: 3319: 3317: 3316: 3312: 3310: 3309: 3305: 3303: 3302: 3298: 3297: 3295: 3293: 3292:Consideration 3289: 3283: 3282: 3278: 3276: 3275: 3271: 3269: 3268: 3264: 3262: 3261: 3257: 3255: 3254: 3250: 3248: 3247: 3243: 3241: 3240: 3236: 3234: 3233: 3229: 3227: 3226: 3222: 3220: 3219: 3215: 3214: 3212: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3191: 3190: 3186: 3185: 3183: 3181: 3177: 3171: 3168: 3167: 3165: 3163: 3159: 3153: 3152: 3148: 3146: 3145: 3141: 3139: 3138: 3134: 3132: 3131: 3127: 3125: 3124: 3120: 3119: 3117: 3115: 3111: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3093: 3088: 3086: 3081: 3079: 3074: 3073: 3070: 3064: 3061: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3045: 3043: 3039: 3036: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3023: 3021: 3018: 3016: 3013: 3011: 3007: 3004: 3002: 2998: 2995: 2993: 2990: 2988: 2984: 2981: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2964: 2961: 2960: 2956: 2953: 2949: 2948: 2944: 2942: 2938: 2937: 2933: 2930: 2929: 2925: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2914: 2913: 2909: 2908: 2904: 2901: 2899: 2895: 2892: 2889: 2886: 2883: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2871: 2868: 2865: 2862: 2859: 2858: 2854: 2853: 2850: 2849:0-8142-0676-X 2846: 2842: 2841: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2824: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2793: 2790: 2786: 2783: 2779: 2776: 2773: 2772: 2767: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2743: 2739: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2707: 2704: 2692: 2688: 2681: 2678: 2662: 2655: 2652: 2648: 2647: 2642: 2641: 2634: 2631: 2627: 2626: 2619: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2604: 2601: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2565: 2562: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2530: 2527: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2495: 2492: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2456: 2453: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2417: 2415: 2411: 2404: 2400: 2397: 2395: 2392: 2390: 2387: 2385: 2382: 2380: 2377: 2375: 2372: 2369: 2366: 2365: 2361: 2356: 2355: 2351: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2340: 2339: 2335: 2334: 2330: 2325: 2324: 2320: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2300: 2298: 2297:caveat emptor 2294: 2293: 2289: 2286: 2282: 2281: 2277: 2274: 2273: 2269: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2257: 2256: 2254: 2250: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2230: 2227: 2226: 2222: 2221: 2217: 2214: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2204: 2203: 2199: 2197: 2196: 2192: 2190: 2189: 2185: 2183: 2182: 2178: 2176: 2175: 2171: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2160: 2156: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2133: 2130: 2127: 2126: 2122: 2121: 2117: 2116: 2114: 2106: 2101: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2089: 2087: 2084: 2082: 2079: 2077: 2074: 2072: 2069: 2067: 2064: 2062: 2059: 2058: 2056: 2048: 2043: 2042: 2038: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2022: 2019: 2018: 2014: 2012: 2011: 2007: 2005: 2004: 2000: 1998: 1997: 1993: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1963: 1962: 1958: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1949: 1948: 1944: 1942: 1941: 1937: 1934: 1931: 1929: 1928: 1924: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1914: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1905: 1903: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1882: 1881: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1868: 1864: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1853: 1849: 1848: 1844: 1841: 1838: 1837: 1835: 1828:Implied terms 1827: 1822: 1821: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1805: 1801: 1798: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1787: 1784: 1783: 1779: 1776: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1764:Express terms 1763: 1759: 1755: 1754: 1750: 1747: 1744: 1741: 1738: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1725: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1705: 1698: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1668: 1666: 1662: 1655: 1653: 1651: 1643: 1641: 1634: 1629: 1628: 1624: 1621: 1620: 1616: 1613: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1601: 1597: 1590: 1585: 1584: 1580: 1579: 1575: 1572: 1561: 1556: 1552: 1547: 1543: 1542: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1514: 1505: 1500: 1498: 1493: 1491: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1475: 1473: 1467: 1465: 1458: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1422: 1419: 1416: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1400: 1396: 1388: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1375: 1374: 1370: 1367: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1358: 1354: 1351: 1350: 1346: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1304: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1287: 1285: 1281: 1276: 1272: 1267: 1262: 1258: 1247: 1246:consideration 1243: 1237: 1232: 1231: 1225: 1220: 1219: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1201: 1196: 1195: 1189: 1184: 1183: 1177: 1168: 1163: 1161: 1156: 1154: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1138: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1109: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1074: 1068: 1066: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1047: 1043: 1037: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1014: 1012: 1011:knockout rule 1007: 1003: 998: 996: 991: 987: 979: 977: 975: 970: 967: 963: 960: 955: 951: 947: 945: 939: 928: 923: 919: 915: 910: 905: 904: 898: 893: 892: 886: 881: 880: 874: 869: 868: 862: 857: 856: 850: 845: 844: 836: 831: 830: 824: 815: 810: 808: 803: 801: 796: 795: 792: 785: 783: 776: 774: 772: 768: 764: 759: 757: 753: 742: 737: 735: 730: 728: 723: 722: 720: 719: 713: 709: 705: 702: 698: 695: 691: 688: 684: 680: 677: 674: 672:jurisdictions 671: 667: 666: 664: 663: 658: 653: 650: 648: 645: 643: 639: 635: 632: 630: 627: 625: 622: 621: 620: 619: 615: 610: 605: 604:United States 602: 598: 595: 593: 590: 589: 587: 585: 582: 580: 577: 575: 572: 570: 567: 565: 562: 560: 557: 556: 555: 554: 549: 544: 541: 539: 536: 535: 534: 533: 528: 521: 518: 517: 515: 512: 509: 506: 505: 504: 503: 498: 493: 492: 488: 486: 483: 481: 478: 476: 475: 471: 469: 466: 465: 464: 463: 460: 456: 451: 448: 444: 443:penal damages 440: 437: 436: 435: 434:Money damages 432: 430: 427: 426: 425: 424: 421: 417: 412: 409: 407: 404: 402: 399: 397: 394: 392: 389: 387: 384: 383: 382: 381: 378: 374: 369: 366: 364: 361: 359: 356: 354: 351: 349: 346: 345: 344: 343: 338: 331: 328: 327: 326: 323: 319: 316: 315: 314: 311: 307: 304: 302: 299: 298: 297: 294: 290: 287: 286: 285: 282: 280: 277: 276: 275: 274: 271: 267: 262: 259: 257: 256: 252: 250: 247: 245: 242: 240: 237: 236: 235: 234: 229: 224: 221: 219: 216: 214: 213:Unclean hands 211: 209: 208: 204: 202: 199: 197: 194: 192: 189: 187: 184: 180: 177: 175: 174:Impossibility 172: 170: 167: 166: 165: 164:Force majeure 162: 160: 159: 155: 151: 148: 147: 146: 145:public policy 142: 139: 137: 133: 130: 128: 125: 123: 120: 119: 118: 117: 114: 110: 105: 102: 100: 97: 95: 94:Consideration 92: 90: 87: 85: 82: 80: 77: 75: 72: 70: 67: 65: 62: 60: 57: 55: 52: 51: 50: 49: 44: 40: 36: 35: 32: 28: 19: 4032:Human rights 3994: 3953:Types of law 3894:State courts 3794:Civil rights 3714: 3694: 3660: 3653: 3646: 3639: 3619: 3612: 3594: 3587: 3556: 3549: 3529: 3522: 3497: 3490: 3483: 3476: 3445: 3438: 3431: 3424: 3417: 3393: 3341: 3334: 3327: 3320: 3313: 3306: 3299: 3279: 3272: 3265: 3258: 3251: 3244: 3237: 3230: 3223: 3216: 3187: 3180:Mailbox rule 3149: 3142: 3135: 3128: 3121: 3098: 3042:default rule 3029:moral hazard 2957: 2945: 2934: 2926: 2915: 2838: 2826: 2809: 2802: 2799:MA Eisenberg 2788: 2781: 2769: 2768:RE Barnett, 2762: 2759:MA Eisenberg 2751: 2725:. Retrieved 2720: 2716: 2706: 2694:. Retrieved 2690: 2680: 2668:. Retrieved 2654: 2644: 2638: 2633: 2623: 2618: 2608: 2603: 2578: 2574: 2564: 2539: 2535: 2529: 2504: 2500: 2494: 2469: 2465: 2455: 2430: 2426: 2352: 2344: 2341:, copyrights 2336: 2321: 2301: 2290: 2278: 2270: 2234: 2208: 2200: 2193: 2186: 2179: 2172: 2165: 2157: 2137: 2123: 2039: 2031: 2023: 2015: 2008: 2001: 1994: 1986: 1981:Post v Jones 1979: 1959: 1952: 1945: 1938: 1925: 1918: 1886: 1878: 1857: 1845: 1818: 1802: 1788: 1780: 1769: 1751: 1748:§2-313(1)(b) 1731:Construction 1706: 1702: 1689: 1672: 1663: 1659: 1647: 1638: 1625: 1617: 1609: 1598: 1594: 1581: 1539: 1528: 1517: 1471: 1462: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1426: 1406: 1402: 1379: 1371: 1363: 1355: 1347: 1339: 1331: 1307: 1300: 1296: 1290: 1288: 1283: 1279: 1274: 1270: 1268: 1264: 1228: 1216: 1204: 1192: 1180: 1129: 1121: 1113: 1105: 1092: 1081: 1077: 1072: 1069: 1064: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1045: 1041: 1038: 1036:a merchant. 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1015: 1010: 1005: 1001: 999: 994: 989: 983: 971: 968: 964: 958: 956: 952: 948: 943: 941: 901: 889: 877: 865: 853: 839: 827: 780: 760: 752:Contract law 751: 750: 647:Criminal law 629:Property law 603: 584:Saudi Arabia 489: 472: 253: 205: 156: 74:Posting rule 31:Contract law 3944:Reading law 3776:legislation 3381:3rd parties 3047:Agency cost 3006:Will theory 2637:See, e.g., 2622:See, e.g., 2607:See, e.g., 1865:(2nd 1979) 1863:601 F2d 609 1699:Restitution 1644:Arbitration 1576:Performance 1099:War of 1812 1073:gap fillers 1071:the Code's 485:Restitution 296:Arbitration 3924:Law school 3869:Bankruptcy 3784:Federalism 3679:obligation 3606:Illegality 3210:agreements 3208:Browsewrap 3200:Shrinkwrap 2987:regulation 2952:union shop 2888:D. Kennedy 2882:MJ Horwitz 2691:LexisNexis 2405:References 2331:Illegality 2111:See also: 2053:See also: 1867:Friendly J 1832:See also: 1809:451 F 2d 3 1758:Friendly J 1271:sufficient 1022:additional 1002:additional 990:expression 687:pandectist 670:common law 450:Rescission 358:Delegation 353:Assignment 141:Illegality 89:Firm offer 4015:Procedure 4005:Corporate 3916:Education 3204:Clickwrap 2954:contracts 2894:F Kessler 2867:LL Fuller 2835:G Gilmore 2823:OW Holmes 2795:LL Fuller 2789:Contracts 2370:1962-1979 2310:infested 2134:§§153-154 1968:Substance 1852:Cardozo J 1813:phosphate 1795:Traynor J 1389:Formality 1102:contract. 1018:different 1006:different 786:Agreement 777:Formation 689:tradition 559:Australia 406:Deviation 313:Mediation 46:Formation 4092:Category 4037:Juvenile 4010:Criminal 4000:Property 3995:Contract 3960:Abortion 3857:District 2992:Autonomy 2861:MR Cohen 2855:Articles 2362:See also 1604:Examples 1326:Examples 1291:fungible 1284:how much 1275:adequacy 1261:Estoppel 1087:Examples 959:separate 763:adoption 652:Evidence 624:Tort law 597:Scotland 420:Remedies 363:Novation 186:Hardship 113:Defences 54:Capacity 4047:Privacy 4042:Martial 3852:Appeals 3847:Supreme 3580:Mistake 3377:Privity 3010:promise 2903:R Pound 2843:(1974) 2774:(2010). 2727:9 April 2696:9 April 2670:9 April 2595:1599520 2556:1340045 2521:1072802 2308:termite 2107:Mistake 1591:Damages 1468:Privity 995:proviso 765:of the 642:estates 574:Ireland 191:Set-off 132:Threats 127:Mistake 4062:Sports 4022:Energy 3934:US bar 3874:Claims 3379:& 2978:trusts 2876:R Hale 2847: 2791:(2008) 2765:(2011) 2754:(2008) 2723:(1): 1 2593: 2554: 2519: 2486:786706 2484: 2447:786706 2445: 2316:seller 2259:Duress 2249:Duress 1739:§2-301 962:week. 640:, and 638:trusts 612:Other 564:Canada 4077:Trust 4067:State 4051:State 2920:, on 2817:Books 2745:Texts 2664:(PDF) 2591:JSTOR 2552:JSTOR 2517:JSTOR 2482:JSTOR 2443:JSTOR 2312:house 2231:§§155 756:state 660:Notes 634:Wills 616:areas 579:India 441:, or 391:Cover 4072:Tort 4057:Race 3862:list 3774:and 3040:and 2999:and 2985:and 2976:and 2970:tort 2845:ISBN 2729:2018 2698:2018 2672:2018 2251:and 1976:§208 1935:§211 1875:§315 1397:and 1280:some 1259:and 1244:and 1240:See 1042:both 1026:does 984:The 143:and 134:and 4027:Gun 3884:Tax 2583:doi 2544:doi 2509:doi 2474:doi 2435:doi 1065:not 1034:not 1030:not 614:law 4094:: 3408:, 3206:, 3202:, 3049:, 3031:, 3027:, 3008:, 2972:, 2968:, 2837:, 2825:, 2797:, 2780:, 2761:, 2721:64 2719:. 2715:. 2689:. 2589:. 2579:52 2577:. 2573:. 2550:. 2540:87 2538:. 2515:. 2505:68 2503:. 2480:. 2470:26 2468:. 2464:. 2441:. 2431:26 2429:. 2425:. 2413:^ 1807:, 1075:. 1046:do 916:§§ 773:. 636:, 4053:) 4049:( 3864:) 3860:( 3755:e 3748:t 3741:v 3091:e 3084:t 3077:v 2731:. 2700:. 2674:. 2597:. 2585:: 2558:. 2546:: 2523:. 2511:: 2488:. 2476:: 2449:. 2437:: 1503:e 1496:t 1489:v 1166:e 1159:t 1152:v 813:e 806:t 799:v 740:e 733:t 726:v 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index