United States contract law - Knowledge (XXG)

955:

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.

1428:

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.

1072:

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.

986:. 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. 1585:

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.

3808: 28: 1283:

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.

1575:, 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. 1843:, 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) 1287:

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.

1255:

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.

1603:, 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. 1880:, 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." 1041:

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.

1427:

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

1071:

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

942:

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

1653:

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

1584:

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

1059:

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

1040:

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

950:

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

1392:

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

1254:

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

954:

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."

1431:

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

1286:

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

997:

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

1282:

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

981:

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

938:

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

1419:

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.

1649:

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

1692:

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

1365:, 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. 1048:

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.

1611:, 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. 1452:

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.

1357:, 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. 1044:

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."

1423:

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.

1641:(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. 3241: 1090:

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

1067:

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.

2617:, 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". 289: 1683:, 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. 1333:, 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. 1341:, 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. 770:

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.

1275:. 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. 1266:

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

758:. 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 1628:

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.

1028:

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

3324: 3234: 1588:

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.

2638:, 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. 1607: 1099:, 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 294: 3777: 3078: 958:

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.

3125: 2005: 982:

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

1828:

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"

3850: 935:, 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. 965:, 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. 2879:, '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 1294:

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.

3742: 3480: 1490: 508: 931:

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

3158: 3139: 557: 3248: 1056:

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.

682: 249: 3636: 3428: 2268: 4045: 3071: 1804:

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.

1153: 743:

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

3963: 3331: 1369: 939:

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."

3867: 3584: 2190: 1115:, 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 829: 667:

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

2634: 1529: 3927: 3764: 1949: 1461:

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.

800: 3609: 3064: 4039: 3978: 3958: 3759: 3539: 3213: 3206: 1976: 1741: 1654:

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

1325:, 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. 3118: 2017:, 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. 1876: 2176: 3827: 3735: 2916: 2009:, 93 Utah 414 (1937) a contract clause limiting the time for allowing complaints about the delivery of a shipment of ketchup was unconscionable 1483: 1345: 1086:, 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 843: 727: 3973: 3862: 3421: 3255: 2924: 2029: 1808: 3968: 3922: 3904: 3782: 2905: 2382: 2315:, 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 2049: 747:

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

4086: 3816: 2935: 867: 1908: 1766:

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

3835: 2876: 2054: 1868: 855: 4035: 4020: 3998: 3988: 3728: 2837: 2356: 1962: 1921: 1476: 1146: 759: 3220: 2346:

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.

2488:

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

1693:

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

1278:

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

4030: 4025: 4003: 3953: 3317: 3280: 3132: 2367: 1942: 1928: 1245: 1234: 751: 313: 277: 1998: 1935: 4050: 3912: 3840: 3772: 3355: 2947: 1759: 1571: 1650:

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

3857: 3435: 3296: 3262: 2989: 2217: 2140: 2120: 1835: 1361: 1206: 306: 1009:

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

3948: 3792: 3383: 2155: 793: 1872:, 110 U.S. 108 (1884) there was an implied warranty of fitness for the Kellog Co to build a bridge for a railway company. 1792: 4015: 3845: 1139: 750:

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

572: 162: 3993: 3882: 3473: 3039: 2273: 2198: 2021: 57: 2676:"The United States Federal Arbitration Act: a powerful tool for enforcing arbitration agreements and arbitral awards" 1218: 3684: 3414: 3177: 2084: 1915: 1847: 720: 671: 318: 1373:, 221 N.W.2d 609 (IA 1974) charitable subscriptions can be enforced without consideration or detrimental reliance. 1310:

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

4055: 3917: 3227: 2183: 2059: 1507: 1103: 1013:

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

977:("UCC") dispenses with the mirror image rule in § 2-207. UCC § 2-207(1) provides that a "definite and seasonable 567: 526: 438: 1107:, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) the click of a button accepting a license's terms on software counts as agreement 4010: 3751: 3629: 3150: 3111: 2260: 2224: 2079: 879: 786: 374: 87: 2701: 1991: 4065: 3872: 3466: 3369: 3342: 3269: 2816: 2362: 2204: 2069: 1901: 1861: 1734: 1725: 1700:

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

1638: 1615: 1539: 974: 902: 891: 755: 696: 547: 356: 206: 4060: 3568: 2910: 2377: 2334: 2113: 2101: 2074: 1706:

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

272: 232: 157: 133: 115: 3807: 1715:

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

3546: 3377: 3021: 2867:, 'Force and the State: A Comparison of "Political" and "Economic" Compulsion' (1935) 35 Columbia LR 149 2828: 2613: 2291: 2013: 713: 700: 689: 562: 552: 496: 120: 2632:, 75 U.S. 557 (1869) jurisdiction of courts to award specific performance in the interests of justice; 2162: 2127: 1984: 1778: 3188: 3102: 3008: 2372: 2064: 1770: 1448:

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

1170: 926: 580: 417: 267: 146: 52: 47: 2169: 1304:

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

3890: 3675: 3502: 3365: 2971: 2326: 2043: 1387: 962: 336: 227: 92: 72: 2873:, 'The History of the Public/Private Distinction' (1982) 130(6) University of Pennsylvania LR 1423 1969: 1002:. Any "gaps" resulting from the removal of these terms are "filled" by Article 2's "gap-fillers." 3797: 3602: 3577: 3487: 3303: 2994: 2954: 2579: 2540: 2505: 2470: 2431: 2342: 2147: 1559: 1353: 1337: 1194: 1111: 1095: 622: 585: 427: 399: 365: 258: 243: 237: 211: 2870: 2675: 1855: 1746: 1851: 1797: 1432:

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

3704: 3695: 3620: 3498: 3026: 3013: 2962: 2951:, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) the US government's obligation to honor contracts with Native Americans. 2833: 2628: 1890: 1679: 1383: 479: 468: 189: 138: 129: 110: 67: 1637:

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

3643: 3512: 3457: 3407: 3394: 2985: 2598: 2571: 2532: 2497: 2462: 2423: 2280: 1822: 1599: 1518: 1082: 502: 389: 384: 346: 341: 184: 167: 2858:

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

2194:, 331 N.W.2d 203 (1982) it transpired an illegal septic system had contaminated the ground. 1712:

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

1416:

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

3787: 3650: 3310: 3289: 2929: 2387: 2311: 2241: 1675:

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

1548: 1329: 1321: 1291: 1230: 1182: 1119: 915: 505:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith) 394: 124: 101: 1406:

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

998:

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

906: 3665: 3530: 3519: 3350: 2766: 2450: 2411: 817: 699:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to 640: 531: 462: 447: 195: 42: 2523:

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

4080: 3398: 2285: 431: 179: 152: 82: 2559: 1403:

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

3168: 3030: 3017: 2787: 2747: 635: 630: 617: 408: 62: 27: 2759: 1123:

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

3932: 3035: 1087: 473: 379: 284: 201: 2861:

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

1349:, 15 S.W. 844 (1891) promising not to sue did not amount to valid consideration 3196: 3003: 2975: 2940: 1468: 1307:

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

1271:

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

744: 675: 658: 77: 3056: 3192: 2882: 2855: 2823: 2811: 2783: 1840: 1801: 1783: 1396:

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

626: 301: 3720: 2885:, 'Contracts of Adhesion – Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract' (1943) 3242:

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

2649: 2980: 2849: 1249: 1131: 456: 351: 174: 19: 2560:"Beyond Promissory Estoppel: Contract Law and the "Invisible Handshake"" 2998: 2891: 2886: 2583: 2544: 2509: 2296: 422: 2474: 2435: 1033:

parties are merchants then additional terms in a purported acceptance

3051: 2966: 2864: 2304: 2247: 2237: 778: 2575: 2536: 2501: 2602:, 114 N.C. App. 52 (1994) regarding formality and part performance. 2466: 2427: 1409:

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

2300: 1788:

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

1445:

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

1037:

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

2412:"Offer and Acceptance, and Some of the Resulting Legal Relations" 3325:

Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court

3235:

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

2958: 2451:"ffer and Acceptance, and Some of the Resulting Legal Relations" 2295:

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

1950:

Max True Plastering Co v United States Fidelty & Guaranty Co

612: 3724: 3060: 1703:

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

1472: 1135: 782: 2648:

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

602: 1608:

United States Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc.

1742:

Frigaliment Importing Company v BNS International Sales Corp

1877:

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

2852:, 'The Basis of Contract' (1933) 46 Harvard Law Review 553 2177:

Firestone & Parson, Inc v Union League of Philadelphia

2264:, 248 U.S. 132 (1918) superior knowledge of US government 3126:

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

2303:

not revealed to buyers. Even though no questions asked,

2006:

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

1052:

Frequently, however, the buyer in such a situation does

692:

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

2674:

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

2650:"Mandatory Arbitration and the Federal Arbitration Act" 1809:

Southern Concrete Services v Mableton Contractors, Inc

993:

terms. It does not explicitly address what to do with

2702:"The Concept of Benefit in the Law of Quasi-Contract" 3004:"Promise" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2558:

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

1980:, 350 F2d 445 (DC 1965) procedural unconscionability 989:

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

695:

7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American

3941: 3903: 3881: 3826: 3815: 3758: 3694: 3674: 3664: 3619: 3594: 3567: 3560: 3529: 3497: 3456: 3449: 3393: 3364: 3341: 3279: 3187: 3167: 3149: 3101: 3094: 2050:

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 2010

1672:

the other's acceptance or retention of the benefit;

3481:Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America 3159:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States 2771:Concepts and Case Analysis in the Law of Contracts 1412:Contracts that cannot be performed within one year 509:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law 3140:Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 2752:Contract Law: Selected Source Materials Annotated 1909:Moscatiello v Pittsburgh Contractors Equipment Co 3637:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States 3249:Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology 1400:Land, including leases over a year and easements 3429:G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States 2760:The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Contracts 2269:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States 1021:become part of the contract if either party is 1017:tell what to do with additional terms. They do 664:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions 2405: 2403: 3736: 3072: 2894:, 'Liberty of Contract' (1909) 18 Yale LJ 454 2799:Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials 1484: 1147: 794: 721: 8: 2276:gives the US government a duty of disclosure 3332:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 2635:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. 1943:Farm Bureau Mutual insurance Co v Sandbulte 1929:Darner Motor Sales v Universal Underwriters 1530:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. 1370:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 701:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation 3823: 3743: 3729: 3721: 3671: 3585:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly 3564: 3453: 3098: 3079: 3065: 3057: 2272:(160 Ct. Cl. 437, 312 F.2d 774 (1963) the 2191:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly 1999:Maxwell v Fidelity Financial Services, Inc 1936:Gordinier v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co 1696:The elements of this cause of action are: 1662:The elements of this cause of action are: 1491: 1477: 1469: 1154: 1140: 1132: 831:Hotchkiss v National City Bank of New York 801: 787: 779: 728: 714: 15: 1297:The elements of promissory estoppel are: 3610:SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 3119:Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino 943:long as Bob has not accepted the offer. 3540:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 3214:Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. 2399: 1977:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 1619:444 U.S. 507 (1980) restitution damages 844:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. US 648: 600: 539: 518: 488: 446: 407: 364: 328: 257: 219: 100: 34: 18: 2917:The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Company 1439:Goods have been received and accepted; 1346:Lingenfelder v. Wainwright Brewing Co. 497:Duty of honest contractual performance 3422:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 3256:Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc. 2925:Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 2307:still liable for failure to disclose. 2030:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 1669:the other's knowledge of the benefit; 685:of International Commercial Contracts 7: 2906:Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute 2797:CL Knapp, NM Crystal and HG Prince, 2383:Civil Procedure in the United States 2156:Nester v Michigan Land & Iron Co 1005:A term in a purported acceptance is 2936:Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild Inc. 2135:Mutual mistakes, shared assumptions 1793:Columbia Nitrogen Corp v Royster Co 1709:the recipient is unable to consent; 1442:Payment has been made and accepted; 946:However, if the offeree gives some 868:Ariz Cartridge Inc. v. Lexmark Inc. 674:and other civil codes based on the 3221:Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. 2449:Corbin, Arthur L. (January 1917). 2055:Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 1869:Kellogg Bridge Company v. Hamilton 1666:conferral of a benefit on another; 1290:Promissory estoppel is a separate 856:Lefkowitz v. Great Minn Store, Inc 14: 2357:Restatement (Second) of Contracts 1963:Restatement (Second) of Contracts 1922:Restatement (Second) of Contracts 1858:, breach of best efforts covenant 760:Restatement (Second) of Contracts 3806: 3356:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent 3318:King v. Trustees of Boston Univ. 3133:Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green 2655:. Congressional Research Service 2564:University of Chicago Law Review 2368:Uniform Commercial Code adoption 2199:Beachcomber Coins, Inc v Boskett 1572:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent 1246:Consideration under American law 499:(or doctrine of abuse of rights) 314:Enforcement of foreign judgments 278:Hague Choice of Court Convention 26: 2948:Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter 1760:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors 1219:Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 3436:Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton 3297:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon 3263:Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc. 2990:inequality of bargaining power 2218:Restatement, Second, Contracts 2141:Restatement, Second, Contracts 2121:Restatement, Second, Contracts 1836:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon 1362:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon 1301:an express or implied promise; 1262:, but courts do not weigh the 1207:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon 871:, 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) 307:Singapore Mediation Convention 1: 3793:Bill (United States Congress) 3384:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 2887:43(5) Columbia Law Review 629 2700:Sullivan, Timothy J. (1975). 2410:Corbin, A.L. (January 1917). 2151:66 Mich 568, 33 NW 919 (1887) 2117:, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 807 (2001). 1916:Pierce v Catalina Yachts, Inc 1848:Bloor v Falstaff Brewing Corp 1812:, 407 F Supp 581 (ND Ga 1975) 1435:No writing is required when: 681:5 Explicitly rejected by the 448:Quasi-contractual obligations 1745:, 190 FSupp 116 (SDNY 1960) 3474:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. 3040:principal and agent problem 2274:superior knowledge doctrine 2184:Everett v Estate of Sumstad 2022:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. 1904:§2-302, 2-314, 2-316, 2-719 1499:Cases on breach of contract 883:, 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (1999) 4103: 4087:United States contract law 3685:Drennan v. Star Paving Co. 3505:(unwritten & informal) 3415:Seixas and Seixas v. Woods 3178:Ellefson v. Megadeth, Inc. 3088:United States contract law 2235: 2232:Duress and undue influence 2099: 2085:U.S. Department of Justice 2041: 2025:, 622 F.Supp.2d 396 (2009) 1888: 1820: 1800:(4th 1971) 31,000 tons of 1557: 1508:Jacob & Youngs v. Kent 1381: 1243: 1128:Consideration and estoppel 924: 319:Hague Judgments Convention 3918:Law School Admission Test 3804: 3450:Defense against formation 3228:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg 2920:, forum selection clauses 2225:Chimart Associates v Paul 2060:Fair Credit Reporting Act 1546: 1537: 1526: 1515: 1504: 1227: 1215: 1203: 1191: 1179: 1167: 1104:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg 913: 900: 888: 876: 864: 852: 840: 826: 814: 670:4 Specific to the German 3752:Law of the United States 3630:United States v. Spearin 3151:Implied-in-fact contract 3112:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. 2928:, on the Constitution's 2739:I Ayres and RE Speidel, 2261:United States v. Spearin 2080:Federal Trade Commission 1393:the statute of frauds). 1198:, 127 Misc.2d 224 (1984) 880:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. 375:Anticipatory repudiation 125:unequal bargaining power 3467:Morrison v. Amway Corp. 3343:Substantial performance 3270:Feldman v. Google, Inc. 3052:Uniform Commercial Code 2911:forum selection clauses 2741:Studies in Contract Law 2363:Uniform Commercial Code 2284:15 U.S. 178 (1817), on 2205:Uniform Commercial Code 2091:Cancelling the contract 2070:Fair Credit Billing Act 1992:People v Two Wheel Corp 1902:Uniform Commercial Code 1862:Uniform Commercial Code 1735:Uniform Commercial Code 1726:Uniform Commercial Code 1639:Federal Arbitration Act 1540:Uniform Commercial Code 1174:, 226 S.W.2d 673 (1949) 975:Uniform Commercial Code 969:Uniform Commercial Code 903:Uniform Commercial Code 756:Uniform Commercial Code 697:Uniform Commercial Code 672:Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 357:Third-party beneficiary 329:Rights of third parties 207:Accord and satisfaction 2706:Georgetown Law Journal 2378:United States tort law 2335:SCO v. DaimlerChrysler 2212:Transcription mistakes 2102:Mistake (contract law) 2075:Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 1616:Snepp v. United States 1258:Consideration must be 1222:, 133 NW 2d 267 (1965) 1162:Cases on consideration 961:In what is known as a 892:Shuey v. United States 821:, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954) 428:Liquidated, stipulated 273:Forum selection clause 158:Frustration of purpose 3547:Buchwald v. Paramount 3378:De Cicco v. Schweizer 3022:information asymmetry 2939:, on the validity of 2829:The Death of Contract 2614:De Cicco v. Schweizer 2014:Buchwald v. Paramount 1782:68 Cal 2d 222 (1968) 1210:, 118 N.E. 214 (1917) 859:, 86 NW 2d 689 (1957) 847:, 261 U.S. 592 (1923) 690:Canadian contract law 58:Abstraction principle 3928:Admission to the bar 3778:Separation of powers 3103:Offer and acceptance 3009:Arthur Linton Corbin 2801:(7th edn Aspen 2012) 2373:English contract law 2338:, license agreements 2114:Donovan v. RRL Corp. 2065:Truth in Lending Act 1885:Unconscionable terms 1839:, 118 NE 214 (1917) 1831:UCC §1-205 and 2-208 1624:Specific performance 1186:, 27 N.E. 256 (1891) 1171:Batsakis v. Demotsis 927:Offer and acceptance 519:Related areas of law 418:Specific performance 268:Choice of law clause 233:Contract of adhesion 147:Culpa in contrahendo 53:Meeting of the minds 48:Offer and acceptance 3868:International Trade 3676:Promissory estoppel 3561:Cancelling Contract 2972:Freedom of contract 2490:Virginia Law Review 2327:ProCD v. Zeidenberg 2107:Unilateral mistakes 2044:Consumer protection 2038:Consumer protection 2033:, 161 A2d 69 (1960) 1731:Restatement §201(1) 1388:Parol evidence rule 963:battle of the forms 683:UNIDROIT Principles 457:Promissory estoppel 337:Privity of contract 290:New York Convention 250:UNIDROIT Principles 93:Collateral contract 88:Implication-in-fact 73:Invitation to treat 3964:Child sexual abuse 3954:Administrative law 3798:United States Code 3760:Constitutional law 3603:Stoddard v. Martin 3578:Sherwood v. Walker 3488:McMichael v. Price 3304:Kirksey v. Kirksey 3207:Specht v. Netscape 3095:Contract formation 2955:Law of obligations 2792:Basic Contract Law 2525:Harvard Law Review 2343:Stoddard v. Martin 2292:Obde v. Schlemeyer 2148:Sherwood v. Walker 1560:Breach of contract 1465:Breach of contract 1354:McMichael v. Price 1338:Kirksey v. Kirksey 1195:Pando v. Fernandez 1112:Specht v. Netscape 1096:Pando v. Fernandez 835:, 200 F 287 (1911) 809:Cases on agreement 503:Duty of good faith 400:Fundamental breach 366:Breach of contract 295:UNCITRAL Model Law 259:Dispute resolution 244:Contra proferentem 238:Integration clause 212:Exculpatory clause 4074: 4073: 3899: 3898: 3854: 3718: 3717: 3714: 3713: 3705:Britton v. Turner 3696:Unjust enrichment 3660: 3659: 3621:Misrepresentation 3556: 3555: 3499:Statute of frauds 3445: 3444: 3027:Complete contract 3014:Adverse selection 2963:unjust enrichment 2629:Willard v. Tayloe 2254:Misrepresentation 2163:Griffith v Brymer 2143:§§151-152 and 154 2128:Speckel v Perkins 1985:Pittsley v Houser 1891:Unconscionability 1774:247 NY 377 (1928) 1680:Britton v. Turner 1658:Unjust Enrichment 1555: 1554: 1384:Statute of Frauds 1241: 1240: 922: 921: 895:, 92 US 73 (1875) 738: 737: 581:England and Wales 489:Duties of parties 480:Negotiorum gestio 469:Unjust enrichment 190:Statute of frauds 139:Unconscionability 111:Misrepresentation 68:Mirror image rule 4094: 3974:Conflict of laws 3848: 3824: 3810: 3745: 3738: 3731: 3722: 3672: 3644:Laidlaw v. Organ 3565: 3513:Buffaloe v. Hart 3501:(written) & 3458:Illusory promise 3454: 3408:Hawkins v. McGee 3395:Implied warranty 3099: 3081: 3074: 3067: 3058: 2986:Bargaining power 2722: 2721: 2719: 2717: 2697: 2691: 2690: 2688: 2686: 2671: 2665: 2664: 2662: 2660: 2654: 2645: 2639: 2624: 2618: 2609: 2603: 2599:Buffaloe v. Hart 2594: 2588: 2587: 2555: 2549: 2548: 2520: 2514: 2513: 2496:(6): 1217–1262. 2485: 2479: 2478: 2455:Yale Law Journal 2446: 2440: 2439: 2416:Yale Law Journal 2407: 2281:Laidlaw v. Organ 2207:§§2-312 to 2-315 1823:Good faith (law) 1779:Masterson v Sine 1600:Hawkins v. McGee 1519:Hawkins v. McGee 1493: 1486: 1479: 1470: 1156: 1149: 1142: 1133: 1083:Laidlaw v. Organ 832: 803: 796: 789: 780: 730: 723: 716: 558:China (mainland) 527:Conflict of laws 390:Efficient breach 385:Exclusion clause 185:Illusory promise 168:Impracticability 30: 16: 4102: 4101: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4070: 3969:Civil procedure 3937: 3895: 3877: 3818: 3811: 3802: 3788:Act of Congress 3762: 3754: 3749: 3719: 3710: 3690: 3656: 3651:Smith v. Bolles 3615: 3590: 3552: 3525: 3493: 3441: 3389: 3360: 3337: 3311:Angel v. Murray 3290:Hamer v. Sidway 3275: 3183: 3163: 3145: 3090: 3085: 3048: 2930:Contract Clause 2899:Contract theory 2776:EA Farnsworth, 2731: 2729:Further reading 2726: 2725: 2715: 2713: 2699: 2698: 2694: 2684: 2682: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2658: 2656: 2652: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2625: 2621: 2610: 2606: 2595: 2591: 2576:10.2307/1599520 2557: 2556: 2552: 2537:10.2307/1340045 2522: 2521: 2517: 2502:10.2307/1072802 2487: 2486: 2482: 2448: 2447: 2443: 2409: 2408: 2401: 2396: 2388:Contract theory 2353: 2322: 2312:Smith v. Bolles 2256: 2244: 2242:Undue influence 2236:Main articles: 2234: 2104: 2098: 2093: 2046: 2040: 1893: 1887: 1825: 1819: 1771:Mitchill v Lath 1763:, on warranties 1755: 1722: 1690: 1660: 1647: 1635: 1626: 1595: 1582: 1567: 1562: 1556: 1551: 1549:US contract law 1542: 1533: 1522: 1511: 1500: 1497: 1467: 1459: 1390: 1382:Main articles: 1380: 1330:Hamer v. Sidway 1322:Angel v. Murray 1317: 1292:cause of action 1252: 1244:Main articles: 1242: 1237: 1231:US contract law 1223: 1211: 1199: 1187: 1183:Hamer v. Sidway 1175: 1163: 1160: 1130: 1120:Seixas v. Woods 1078: 971: 933:implied in fact 929: 923: 918: 916:US contract law 909: 896: 884: 872: 860: 848: 836: 830: 822: 810: 807: 777: 768: 734: 705: 577:United Kingdom 540:By jurisdiction 12: 11: 5: 4100: 4098: 4090: 4089: 4079: 4078: 4072: 4071: 4069: 4068: 4063: 4058: 4053: 4048: 4043: 4033: 4028: 4023: 4018: 4013: 4008: 4007: 4006: 3996: 3991: 3986: 3981: 3979:Constitutional 3976: 3971: 3966: 3961: 3956: 3951: 3945: 3943: 3939: 3938: 3936: 3935: 3930: 3925: 3920: 3915: 3909: 3907: 3901: 3900: 3897: 3896: 3894: 3893: 3887: 3885: 3879: 3878: 3876: 3875: 3870: 3865: 3860: 3855: 3843: 3838: 3832: 3830: 3828:Federal courts 3821: 3813: 3812: 3805: 3803: 3801: 3800: 3795: 3790: 3785: 3780: 3775: 3769: 3767: 3756: 3755: 3750: 3748: 3747: 3740: 3733: 3725: 3716: 3715: 3712: 3711: 3709: 3708: 3700: 3698: 3692: 3691: 3689: 3688: 3680: 3678: 3669: 3666:Quasi-contract 3662: 3661: 3658: 3657: 3655: 3654: 3647: 3640: 3633: 3625: 3623: 3617: 3616: 3614: 3613: 3606: 3598: 3596: 3592: 3591: 3589: 3588: 3581: 3573: 3571: 3562: 3558: 3557: 3554: 3553: 3551: 3550: 3543: 3535: 3533: 3531:Unconscionable 3527: 3526: 3524: 3523: 3520:Foman v. Davis 3516: 3508: 3506: 3503:Parol evidence 3495: 3494: 3492: 3491: 3484: 3477: 3470: 3462: 3460: 3451: 3447: 3446: 3443: 3442: 3440: 3439: 3432: 3425: 3418: 3411: 3403: 3401: 3391: 3390: 3388: 3387: 3380: 3374: 3372: 3362: 3361: 3359: 3358: 3353: 3351:Lucy v. Zehmer 3347: 3345: 3339: 3338: 3336: 3335: 3328: 3321: 3314: 3307: 3300: 3293: 3285: 3283: 3277: 3276: 3274: 3273: 3266: 3259: 3252: 3245: 3238: 3231: 3224: 3217: 3210: 3202: 3200: 3185: 3184: 3182: 3181: 3173: 3171: 3165: 3164: 3162: 3161: 3155: 3153: 3147: 3146: 3144: 3143: 3136: 3129: 3122: 3115: 3107: 3105: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3086: 3084: 3083: 3076: 3069: 3061: 3055: 3054: 3047: 3046:External links 3044: 3043: 3042: 3033: 3024: 3011: 3006: 3001: 2992: 2983: 2978: 2969: 2952: 2944: 2932: 2921: 2913: 2901: 2900: 2896: 2895: 2889: 2880: 2874: 2868: 2862: 2859: 2853: 2846: 2845: 2841: 2840: 2821: 2820:(1890) chs 7-9 2817:The Common Law 2808: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2795: 2794:(9th edn 2013) 2790:and MP Gergen 2781: 2774: 2773:(6th edn 2010) 2767:MA Chirelstein 2764: 2755: 2746:SJ Burton and 2744: 2736: 2735: 2730: 2727: 2724: 2723: 2692: 2666: 2640: 2619: 2604: 2589: 2570:(4): 903–947. 2550: 2531:(5): 917–956. 2515: 2480: 2467:10.2307/786706 2461:(3): 169–206. 2441: 2428:10.2307/786706 2422:(3): 169–206. 2398: 2397: 2395: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2385: 2380: 2375: 2370: 2365: 2360: 2352: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2339: 2331: 2321: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2308: 2288: 2277: 2265: 2255: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2233: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2221: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2202: 2195: 2187: 2180: 2173: 2170:Wood v Boynton 2166: 2159: 2152: 2144: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2131: 2124: 2118: 2109: 2108: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2082: 2077: 2072: 2067: 2062: 2057: 2052: 2039: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2026: 2018: 2010: 2002: 1995: 1988: 1981: 1973: 1966: 1959: 1958: 1954: 1953: 1946: 1939: 1932: 1925: 1919: 1912: 1905: 1898: 1897: 1896:Interpretation 1889:Main article: 1886: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1873: 1865: 1859: 1844: 1832: 1829: 1818: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1805: 1789: 1786: 1775: 1767: 1764: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1738: 1732: 1729: 1721: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1713: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1701: 1689: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1676: 1673: 1670: 1667: 1659: 1656: 1646: 1645:Quasi-contract 1643: 1634: 1631: 1625: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1612: 1604: 1594: 1591: 1581: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1566: 1563: 1558:Main article: 1553: 1552: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1516: 1513: 1512: 1505: 1502: 1501: 1498: 1496: 1495: 1488: 1481: 1473: 1466: 1463: 1458: 1455: 1450: 1449: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1414: 1413: 1410: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1379: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1366: 1358: 1350: 1342: 1334: 1326: 1316: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1239: 1238: 1228: 1225: 1224: 1216: 1213: 1212: 1204: 1201: 1200: 1192: 1189: 1188: 1180: 1177: 1176: 1168: 1165: 1164: 1161: 1159: 1158: 1151: 1144: 1136: 1129: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1116: 1108: 1100: 1092: 1077: 1074: 970: 967: 925:Main article: 920: 919: 914: 911: 910: 907:2-204 to 2-207 901: 898: 897: 889: 886: 885: 877: 874: 873: 865: 862: 861: 853: 850: 849: 841: 838: 837: 827: 824: 823: 818:Lucy v. Zehmer 815: 812: 811: 808: 806: 805: 798: 791: 783: 776: 773: 767: 764: 736: 735: 733: 732: 725: 718: 710: 707: 706: 704: 703: 693: 688:6 Specific to 686: 679: 668: 665: 662: 657:1 Specific to 654: 651: 650: 646: 645: 644: 643: 638: 633: 620: 615: 607: 606: 598: 597: 596: 595: 590: 589: 588: 583: 575: 570: 565: 560: 555: 550: 542: 541: 537: 536: 535: 534: 532:Commercial law 529: 521: 520: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 500: 491: 490: 486: 485: 484: 483: 476: 471: 466: 463:Quantum meruit 459: 451: 450: 444: 443: 442: 441: 436: 435: 434: 420: 412: 411: 405: 404: 403: 402: 397: 392: 387: 382: 377: 369: 368: 362: 361: 360: 359: 354: 349: 344: 339: 331: 330: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 311: 310: 309: 299: 298: 297: 292: 282: 281: 280: 270: 262: 261: 255: 254: 253: 252: 247: 240: 235: 230: 228:Parol evidence 222: 221: 220:Interpretation 217: 216: 215: 214: 209: 204: 199: 196:Non est factum 192: 187: 182: 177: 172: 171: 170: 165: 160: 150: 143: 142: 141: 127: 118: 113: 105: 104: 98: 97: 96: 95: 90: 85: 80: 75: 70: 65: 60: 55: 50: 45: 37: 36: 32: 31: 23: 22: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4099: 4088: 4085: 4084: 4082: 4067: 4064: 4062: 4059: 4057: 4054: 4052: 4049: 4047: 4044: 4041: 4037: 4034: 4032: 4029: 4027: 4024: 4022: 4019: 4017: 4014: 4012: 4009: 4005: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3997: 3995: 3992: 3990: 3987: 3985: 3982: 3980: 3977: 3975: 3972: 3970: 3967: 3965: 3962: 3960: 3959:Child custody 3957: 3955: 3952: 3950: 3947: 3946: 3944: 3940: 3934: 3931: 3929: 3926: 3924: 3921: 3919: 3916: 3914: 3911: 3910: 3908: 3906: 3902: 3892: 3891:State supreme 3889: 3888: 3886: 3884: 3880: 3874: 3871: 3869: 3866: 3864: 3861: 3859: 3856: 3852: 3847: 3844: 3842: 3839: 3837: 3834: 3833: 3831: 3829: 3825: 3822: 3820: 3819:United States 3817:Courts of the 3814: 3809: 3799: 3796: 3794: 3791: 3789: 3786: 3784: 3781: 3779: 3776: 3774: 3771: 3770: 3768: 3766: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3746: 3741: 3739: 3734: 3732: 3727: 3726: 3723: 3707: 3706: 3702: 3701: 3699: 3697: 3693: 3687: 3686: 3682: 3681: 3679: 3677: 3673: 3670: 3667: 3663: 3653: 3652: 3648: 3646: 3645: 3641: 3639: 3638: 3634: 3632: 3631: 3627: 3626: 3624: 3622: 3618: 3612: 3611: 3607: 3605: 3604: 3600: 3599: 3597: 3593: 3587: 3586: 3582: 3580: 3579: 3575: 3574: 3572: 3570: 3566: 3563: 3559: 3549: 3548: 3544: 3542: 3541: 3537: 3536: 3534: 3532: 3528: 3522: 3521: 3517: 3515: 3514: 3510: 3509: 3507: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3490: 3489: 3485: 3483: 3482: 3478: 3476: 3475: 3471: 3469: 3468: 3464: 3463: 3461: 3459: 3455: 3452: 3448: 3438: 3437: 3433: 3431: 3430: 3426: 3424: 3423: 3419: 3417: 3416: 3412: 3410: 3409: 3405: 3404: 3402: 3400: 3399:caveat emptor 3396: 3392: 3386: 3385: 3381: 3379: 3376: 3375: 3373: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3357: 3354: 3352: 3349: 3348: 3346: 3344: 3340: 3334: 3333: 3329: 3327: 3326: 3322: 3320: 3319: 3315: 3313: 3312: 3308: 3306: 3305: 3301: 3299: 3298: 3294: 3292: 3291: 3287: 3286: 3284: 3282: 3281:Consideration 3278: 3272: 3271: 3267: 3265: 3264: 3260: 3258: 3257: 3253: 3251: 3250: 3246: 3244: 3243: 3239: 3237: 3236: 3232: 3230: 3229: 3225: 3223: 3222: 3218: 3216: 3215: 3211: 3209: 3208: 3204: 3203: 3201: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3180: 3179: 3175: 3174: 3172: 3170: 3166: 3160: 3157: 3156: 3154: 3152: 3148: 3142: 3141: 3137: 3135: 3134: 3130: 3128: 3127: 3123: 3121: 3120: 3116: 3114: 3113: 3109: 3108: 3106: 3104: 3100: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3082: 3077: 3075: 3070: 3068: 3063: 3062: 3059: 3053: 3050: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3034: 3032: 3028: 3025: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3012: 3010: 3007: 3005: 3002: 3000: 2996: 2993: 2991: 2987: 2984: 2982: 2979: 2977: 2973: 2970: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2953: 2950: 2949: 2945: 2942: 2938: 2937: 2933: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2922: 2919: 2918: 2914: 2912: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2893: 2890: 2888: 2884: 2881: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2869: 2866: 2863: 2860: 2857: 2854: 2851: 2848: 2847: 2843: 2842: 2839: 2838:0-8142-0676-X 2835: 2831: 2830: 2825: 2822: 2819: 2818: 2813: 2810: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2782: 2779: 2775: 2772: 2768: 2765: 2762: 2761: 2756: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2742: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2732: 2728: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2696: 2693: 2681: 2677: 2670: 2667: 2651: 2644: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2631: 2630: 2623: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2608: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2593: 2590: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2554: 2551: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2519: 2516: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2484: 2481: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2445: 2442: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2406: 2404: 2400: 2393: 2389: 2386: 2384: 2381: 2379: 2376: 2374: 2371: 2369: 2366: 2364: 2361: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2337: 2336: 2332: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2319: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2287: 2286:caveat emptor 2283: 2282: 2278: 2275: 2271: 2270: 2266: 2263: 2262: 2258: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2246: 2245: 2243: 2239: 2231: 2227: 2226: 2222: 2219: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2206: 2203: 2201: 2200: 2196: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2186: 2185: 2181: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2172: 2171: 2167: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2158: 2157: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2142: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2133: 2130: 2129: 2125: 2122: 2119: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2106: 2105: 2103: 2095: 2090: 2086: 2083: 2081: 2078: 2076: 2073: 2071: 2068: 2066: 2063: 2061: 2058: 2056: 2053: 2051: 2048: 2047: 2045: 2037: 2032: 2031: 2027: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2016: 2015: 2011: 2008: 2007: 2003: 2001: 2000: 1996: 1994: 1993: 1989: 1987: 1986: 1982: 1979: 1978: 1974: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1964: 1961: 1960: 1956: 1955: 1952: 1951: 1947: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1931: 1930: 1926: 1923: 1920: 1918: 1917: 1913: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1903: 1900: 1899: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1884: 1879: 1878: 1874: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1853: 1850: 1849: 1845: 1842: 1838: 1837: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1826: 1824: 1817:Implied terms 1816: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1794: 1790: 1787: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1762: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1753:Express terms 1752: 1748: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1736: 1733: 1730: 1727: 1724: 1723: 1719: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1677: 1674: 1671: 1668: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1657: 1655: 1651: 1644: 1642: 1640: 1632: 1630: 1623: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1610: 1609: 1605: 1602: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1590: 1586: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1550: 1545: 1541: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1514: 1510: 1509: 1503: 1494: 1489: 1487: 1482: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1471: 1464: 1462: 1456: 1454: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1411: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1394: 1389: 1385: 1377: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1343: 1340: 1339: 1335: 1332: 1331: 1327: 1324: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1314: 1309: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1295: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1276: 1274: 1270: 1265: 1261: 1256: 1251: 1247: 1236: 1235:consideration 1232: 1226: 1221: 1220: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1202: 1197: 1196: 1190: 1185: 1184: 1178: 1173: 1172: 1166: 1157: 1152: 1150: 1145: 1143: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1127: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1098: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1075: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1063: 1057: 1055: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1036: 1032: 1026: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1003: 1001: 1000:knockout rule 996: 992: 987: 985: 980: 976: 968: 966: 964: 959: 956: 952: 949: 944: 940: 936: 934: 928: 917: 912: 908: 904: 899: 894: 893: 887: 882: 881: 875: 870: 869: 863: 858: 857: 851: 846: 845: 839: 834: 833: 825: 820: 819: 813: 804: 799: 797: 792: 790: 785: 784: 781: 774: 772: 765: 763: 761: 757: 753: 748: 746: 742: 731: 726: 724: 719: 717: 712: 711: 709: 708: 702: 698: 694: 691: 687: 684: 680: 677: 673: 669: 666: 663: 661:jurisdictions 660: 656: 655: 653: 652: 647: 642: 639: 637: 634: 632: 628: 624: 621: 619: 616: 614: 611: 610: 609: 608: 604: 599: 594: 593:United States 591: 587: 584: 582: 579: 578: 576: 574: 571: 569: 566: 564: 561: 559: 556: 554: 551: 549: 546: 545: 544: 543: 538: 533: 530: 528: 525: 524: 523: 522: 517: 510: 507: 506: 504: 501: 498: 495: 494: 493: 492: 487: 482: 481: 477: 475: 472: 470: 467: 465: 464: 460: 458: 455: 454: 453: 452: 449: 445: 440: 437: 433: 432:penal damages 429: 426: 425: 424: 423:Money damages 421: 419: 416: 415: 414: 413: 410: 406: 401: 398: 396: 393: 391: 388: 386: 383: 381: 378: 376: 373: 372: 371: 370: 367: 363: 358: 355: 353: 350: 348: 345: 343: 340: 338: 335: 334: 333: 332: 327: 320: 317: 316: 315: 312: 308: 305: 304: 303: 300: 296: 293: 291: 288: 287: 286: 283: 279: 276: 275: 274: 271: 269: 266: 265: 264: 263: 260: 256: 251: 248: 246: 245: 241: 239: 236: 234: 231: 229: 226: 225: 224: 223: 218: 213: 210: 208: 205: 203: 202:Unclean hands 200: 198: 197: 193: 191: 188: 186: 183: 181: 178: 176: 173: 169: 166: 164: 163:Impossibility 161: 159: 156: 155: 154: 153:Force majeure 151: 149: 148: 144: 140: 137: 136: 135: 134:public policy 131: 128: 126: 122: 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 108: 107: 106: 103: 99: 94: 91: 89: 86: 84: 83:Consideration 81: 79: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 64: 61: 59: 56: 54: 51: 49: 46: 44: 41: 40: 39: 38: 33: 29: 25: 24: 21: 17: 4021:Human rights 3983: 3942:Types of law 3883:State courts 3783:Civil rights 3703: 3683: 3649: 3642: 3635: 3628: 3608: 3601: 3583: 3576: 3545: 3538: 3518: 3511: 3486: 3479: 3472: 3465: 3434: 3427: 3420: 3413: 3406: 3382: 3330: 3323: 3316: 3309: 3302: 3295: 3288: 3268: 3261: 3254: 3247: 3240: 3233: 3226: 3219: 3212: 3205: 3176: 3169:Mailbox rule 3138: 3131: 3124: 3117: 3110: 3087: 3031:default rule 3018:moral hazard 2946: 2934: 2923: 2915: 2904: 2827: 2815: 2798: 2791: 2788:MA Eisenberg 2777: 2770: 2758: 2757:RE Barnett, 2751: 2748:MA Eisenberg 2740: 2714:. Retrieved 2709: 2705: 2695: 2683:. Retrieved 2679: 2669: 2657:. Retrieved 2643: 2633: 2627: 2622: 2612: 2607: 2597: 2592: 2567: 2563: 2553: 2528: 2524: 2518: 2493: 2489: 2483: 2458: 2454: 2444: 2419: 2415: 2341: 2333: 2330:, copyrights 2325: 2310: 2290: 2279: 2267: 2259: 2223: 2197: 2189: 2182: 2175: 2168: 2161: 2154: 2146: 2126: 2112: 2028: 2020: 2012: 2004: 1997: 1990: 1983: 1975: 1970:Post v Jones 1968: 1948: 1941: 1934: 1927: 1914: 1907: 1875: 1867: 1846: 1834: 1807: 1791: 1777: 1769: 1758: 1740: 1737:§2-313(1)(b) 1720:Construction 1695: 1691: 1678: 1661: 1652: 1648: 1636: 1627: 1614: 1606: 1598: 1587: 1583: 1570: 1528: 1517: 1506: 1460: 1451: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1415: 1395: 1391: 1368: 1360: 1352: 1344: 1336: 1328: 1320: 1296: 1289: 1285: 1279: 1277: 1272: 1268: 1263: 1259: 1257: 1253: 1217: 1205: 1193: 1181: 1169: 1118: 1110: 1102: 1094: 1081: 1070: 1066: 1061: 1058: 1053: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1034: 1030: 1027: 1025:a merchant. 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1004: 999: 994: 990: 988: 983: 978: 972: 960: 957: 953: 947: 945: 941: 937: 932: 930: 890: 878: 866: 854: 842: 828: 816: 769: 749: 741:Contract law 740: 739: 636:Criminal law 618:Property law 592: 573:Saudi Arabia 478: 461: 242: 194: 145: 63:Posting rule 20:Contract law 3933:Reading law 3765:legislation 3370:3rd parties 3036:Agency cost 2995:Will theory 2626:See, e.g., 2611:See, e.g., 2596:See, e.g., 1854:(2nd 1979) 1852:601 F2d 609 1688:Restitution 1633:Arbitration 1565:Performance 1088:War of 1812 1062:gap fillers 1060:the Code's 474:Restitution 285:Arbitration 3913:Law school 3858:Bankruptcy 3773:Federalism 3668:obligation 3595:Illegality 3199:agreements 3197:Browsewrap 3189:Shrinkwrap 2976:regulation 2941:union shop 2877:D. Kennedy 2871:MJ Horwitz 2680:LexisNexis 2394:References 2320:Illegality 2100:See also: 2042:See also: 1856:Friendly J 1821:See also: 1798:451 F 2d 3 1747:Friendly J 1260:sufficient 1011:additional 991:additional 979:expression 676:pandectist 659:common law 439:Rescission 347:Delegation 342:Assignment 130:Illegality 78:Firm offer 4004:Procedure 3994:Corporate 3905:Education 3193:Clickwrap 2943:contracts 2883:F Kessler 2856:LL Fuller 2824:G Gilmore 2812:OW Holmes 2784:LL Fuller 2778:Contracts 2359:1962-1979 2299:infested 2123:§§153-154 1957:Substance 1841:Cardozo J 1802:phosphate 1784:Traynor J 1378:Formality 1091:contract. 1007:different 995:different 775:Agreement 766:Formation 678:tradition 548:Australia 395:Deviation 302:Mediation 35:Formation 4081:Category 4026:Juvenile 3999:Criminal 3989:Property 3984:Contract 3949:Abortion 3846:District 2981:Autonomy 2850:MR Cohen 2844:Articles 2351:See also 1593:Examples 1315:Examples 1280:fungible 1273:how much 1264:adequacy 1250:Estoppel 1076:Examples 948:separate 752:adoption 641:Evidence 613:Tort law 586:Scotland 409:Remedies 352:Novation 175:Hardship 102:Defences 43:Capacity 4036:Privacy 4031:Martial 3841:Appeals 3836:Supreme 3569:Mistake 3366:Privity 2999:promise 2892:R Pound 2832:(1974) 2763:(2010). 2716:9 April 2685:9 April 2659:9 April 2584:1599520 2545:1340045 2510:1072802 2297:termite 2096:Mistake 1580:Damages 1457:Privity 984:proviso 754:of the 631:estates 563:Ireland 180:Set-off 121:Threats 116:Mistake 4051:Sports 4011:Energy 3923:US bar 3863:Claims 3368:& 2967:trusts 2865:R Hale 2836: 2780:(2008) 2754:(2011) 2743:(2008) 2712:(1): 1 2582: 2543: 2508: 2475:786706 2473: 2436:786706 2434: 2305:seller 2248:Duress 2238:Duress 1728:§2-301 951:week. 629:, and 627:trusts 601:Other 553:Canada 4066:Trust 4056:State 4040:State 2909:, on 2806:Books 2734:Texts 2653:(PDF) 2580:JSTOR 2541:JSTOR 2506:JSTOR 2471:JSTOR 2432:JSTOR 2301:house 2220:§§155 745:state 649:Notes 623:Wills 605:areas 568:India 430:, or 380:Cover 4061:Tort 4046:Race 3851:list 3763:and 3029:and 2988:and 2974:and 2965:and 2959:tort 2834:ISBN 2718:2018 2687:2018 2661:2018 2240:and 1965:§208 1924:§211 1864:§315 1386:and 1269:some 1248:and 1233:and 1229:See 1031:both 1015:does 973:The 132:and 123:and 4016:Gun 3873:Tax 2572:doi 2533:doi 2498:doi 2463:doi 2424:doi 1054:not 1023:not 1019:not 603:law 4083:: 3397:, 3195:, 3191:, 3038:, 3020:, 3016:, 2997:, 2961:, 2957:, 2826:, 2814:, 2786:, 2769:, 2750:, 2710:64 2708:. 2704:. 2678:. 2578:. 2568:52 2566:. 2562:. 2539:. 2529:87 2527:. 2504:. 2494:68 2492:. 2469:. 2459:26 2457:. 2453:. 2430:. 2420:26 2418:. 2414:. 2402:^ 1796:, 1064:. 1035:do 905:§§ 762:. 625:, 4042:) 4038:( 3853:) 3849:( 3744:e 3737:t 3730:v 3080:e 3073:t 3066:v 2720:. 2689:. 2663:. 2586:. 2574:: 2547:. 2535:: 2512:. 2500:: 2477:. 2465:: 2438:. 2426:: 1492:e 1485:t 1478:v 1155:e 1148:t 1141:v 802:e 795:t 788:v 729:e 722:t 715:v

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

Index