DOCSLIB.ORG

Contract-Law-Flowchart.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contract-Law-Flowchart.Pdf THE LAW OF CONTRACTS ● COMMON LAW ● ● UCC ● Services, Real Estate, Sales of Goods & Leases of Goods Governing Law Insurance, Employment, (Common Law subordinate to UCC; UCC Other not governed by statute subordinate to terms specified in contract) Elements of a Contract AGREEMENT: OFFERS; ACCEPTANCE OR TERMINATION DETERMINATION OF TYPE OF CONTRACT & PARTIES AGREEMENT Sale of Goods Lease of Goods OFFER MADE Consumers UCC Art. 2; CISG (Int’l) UCC Art. 2A Offer : Acceptance : YES : Serious intent Unequivocal ● Timely (mailbox rule) Offer is Detrimental Reliance: Clear & definite terms Silence : knowing accept. / prior dealing Merchants either : (1) Deal Finance Lease: Consumer Lease req: Irrevocable? - Promissory Estoppel Communicated to offeree Communication (if bilateral) in type of goods involved in lessor buys from (1) Lessor who regularly - Partial Performance transaction, (2) Represents supplier & leases to engages in leasing/ YES : CONSIDERATION CAPACITY self as knowledgeable, or lessee; obligations selling; (2) Personal/ Option & No (3) Employs a merchant as irrevocable for family lessee; (3) Total RE Option Legally sufficient value Minors Intoxication a broker lessee payments < $25K Contracts Offer Revoked Promise to do sth one has no prior Contract voidable Voidable if commitment to do (“disaffirmance”) person could not Offer Terminated by Law : Performance of an action one is not Except: marriage, comprehend Death of Party / Destruction of Prop. AGREEMENT: OFFER, TERMS, ACCEPTANCE obligated to undertake necessaries , age legal conseq. Forbearance (refrain from an action that misrepresentation May disaffirm or Offer Rejected No one has a legal right to do) May ratify upon ratify w/in reas. reach age of maj. time after sober Offer (formal or informal) Irrevocable? Offer Terminated by Law : Lapse of Time Bargained-for Exchange Mental Incompetence Results of Terms Left Open Offer Revoked Must be an exchange, not a gift Void if prev ruled incomp by court Offer Terminated by Law : NO: past consid., illusory promises Reasonable price fixed by Voidable if incomp @ time formed Price YES. UCC: merchant’s Supervening Illegality parties (or by court) Valid if comp @ time contract formed written & signed firm Exceptions to Consideration Req. offer; CISG: any offer Offer Accepted Detrimental reliance / P. Estop. LEGALITY Price (unfixed by Other pty. sets reasonable fault of party) price, or voidable reasonably relied on. Counter-offer Prom. to pay debt barred by S of L By unauthorized By authorized Charitable contribution Proper form required for formal contracts mirror-image Due at time & place buyer Terminated means means Payment rule applies rec’s goods by law Consideration in Settlements Contrary to Statute Contrary to Pub. Pol. Pickup @ seller’s business / Accord & Satis. (if amt is disputed) Illegal : crimes, Torts, restraint of Delivery/ home; reasonable time Rejected Release (contract to avoid a claim) usury; trade, exculpatory, timeframe allocated for performance. CONSIDERATION, LEGALITY, CAPACITY Covenant Not to Sue (substitutes a Restricted : unconscionable FRAUD, CONSENT & MISTAKES contract for some other claim; does not gambling, licensing, (proced. / subst.), Until either party cancels Contract term Requirements met for bar future collection if breached) Sundays discriminatory w/ reasonable notification Counter Offer No Consideration, Legality, Materially diff. or Seller deterines and Capacity? Shipment conditional (no Categories of Contracts arrangements Yes mirror-image rule) Assortment of Buyer discretion BILATERAL : EXPRESS : goods Offer Accepted Legally Mistakes YES : A promise for a promise Formed by words Usually impossible to any reasonable means Prohibited of Material YES : Bilateral Unilateral UNILATERAL : IMPLIED IN FACT : Quantity determine unless output or Contracts Fact? A promise for an act; irrevocable once Formed at least in part by parties’ conduct requirements contract By shipment of performance has begun non-conforming Minors and goods Intoxicated No FORMAL : Req’s for Implied in Fact: Parties Requires special form P furnished property/service to D; By beginning With non-material changes; By shipment of (ex: Cs under seal; letters of credit) P expected payment & D knew or should performance no objection w/in 10 days conforming goods Fraud, Duress, INFORMAL : have known payment was expected; Voidable contract is No Undue Influence, or No special form D had opportunity to reject and did not avoided by innocent party? Unconscionability? Enforceability CONSIDERATION, LEGALITY, CAPACITY, FRAUD, CONSENT, Yes See Common Law Processes Yes MISTAKES, E-TRANSACTIONS No Valid Contracts Void Contracts Contract is void TIME OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS Enforceable Voidable Unenforceable Valid, (all required (optionally avoidable Unenforceable ID at time shipped, Voidable contract is (legal defense) Other Future goods Yes Enforceable elements) by a party) (no contract) marked, or designated avoided by innocent party? Contract ID at time of conception Animals Statute of Frauds (must be in/evidenced by writing or else unenforceable): ID at time planted; if 12+ months, time crops begin to grow Crops Interests in Land : RE transactions, options, leases, mortgages, things permanently attached APPLICABLE LAW FOR ELECTRONIC Electronic One Year Rule : Performance is objectively impossible, or not contemplated by the parties, to ID at time of separation & Goods part of TRANSACTIONS: UETA (1999) E-SIGN ACT (2000) transaction? Non-fungible be completed within one year of the day after contract signing designation a larger mass Collateral/Secondary Promises : exception if “primary purpose” is for benefit of guarantor Fungible Yes State has enacted unmodified UETA? Yes Marriage : voluntary promises of marriage, pre/post-nups (usually consideration is required) Goods are in ID on contract formation UCC : Under UCC, sales contracts $500+ / leases $1000+ must state at least the quantity existence Mods consistent E-SIGN rules Goods Identified No No No term. UCC exceptions: specially-manufactured goods; admissions; partial performance. w/ E-SIGN? govern Yes Interpretation E-contract follows state law PASSAGE OF TITLE / LEASEHOLD; Other Rules (when meaning in the document isn’t clear) Seller’s title Plain Meaning Rule TRANSFER OF RISK Contract is interpreted as a whole Seller holds title? Yes was properly Contract is enforced No Negotiated terms > standardized terms obtained? PERFORMANCE & DISCHARGE according to what it says Specific language > general ● W ritten terms > pre-printed Good faith purchaser? No Conditions precedent/ (“face of the instrument”) Contract is canceled No Ambiguity punishes author ● T rade usage/prior dealing subsequent are met? Title (or leasehold) can Void title Yes Third Party Rights pass to buyer (or lessor) Dmgs for diff. b/t Substantial Complete Shipment actual & contracted Performance or Yes Performance Rights can be assigned unless: Duties can be delegated unless: contract (default) performance minor breach Prohib. by statute or (generally) the contract Personal services / special trust involved Title documentation No movement Destination Mutual rescission Personal services ● Assignment significantly Performance will vary materially Novation required? of goods contract changes risks/duties of obligor Prohibited by contract Substitute Title passes Accord & upon delivery Agreement Satisfaction Discharge by Intended Beneficiaries have enforceable legal rights upon vesting. Vesting occurs (unless No Yes Title passes unless otherwise Operation of Law contract specifies otherwise) when (1) 3rd party changes position in justifiable reliance; (2) 3rd when seller agreed party sues on the promise made; (3) 3rd party gives consent on the promise. tenders Title passes on ID Title passes Incidental Beneficiaries do not have enforceable legal rights. goods at of goods (or on upon delivery BREACH & REMEDIES designated Risk transfer on Material Breach occurs contract formation) of documents Mistakes & Fraud location delivery to carrier Fraudulent Misrepresentation Undue Influence Seller / lessor is a Risk transfer Risk transfer on tender Misrepresentation of material fact Clear & convincing evidence that the merchant? on delivery of at specified loc. Damages Waiver of Breach Equitable Remedies Intent to deceive transaction “induced domination” of a documents Justifiable reliance by other party weaker party If injury is proven, damages = represented Presumed in relationships of trust & Compensatory Construction Yes Risk transfer on receipt value less price paid (+ punitive damages) confidence & must be rebutted Owner Breach Duress Mistakes: Contract remains enforceable No Risk transfer on tender of deliv. Sale of Sale of Threatened by wrongful/illegal act unless mistake is Bilateral (both parties Land Goods Before Economic duress if party exacting the made mistake) & mistake of material fact; During construction price also created the need OR gross/obvious math error. construction UCC RIGHTS & DUTIES Buyer begins Breach Unconscionability (often: fine print or adhesion contracts): Parties have substantially unequal Duties & Rights of Seller / Lessor Duties & Rights of Specific Buyer / Lessee Profits + costs bargaining positions, and enforcement of the term would be manifestly unfair/oppressive. Conforming Goods ● Tender of Deliv. performance; if Profits incurred Shipment Contract: Facilitate deliv. with carrier; provide Payment at land is already Lost buyer nec. docs to get possession; notification of designated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Third Party Beneficiaries and Contractual Networks
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2015 Third Party Beneficiaries and Contractual Networks Alan Schwartz [email protected] Robert E. Scott Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Alan Schwartz & Robert E. Scott, Third Party Beneficiaries and Contractual Networks, JOURNAL OF LEGAL ANALYSIS, VOL. 7, P. 325, 2015; YALE LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NO. 523 (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1900 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES AND CONTRACTUAL NETWORKS Alan Schwartz* and Robert E. Scott** Contact: Robert E. Scott Columbia Law School 435 W. 116th Street New York, New York 10027 212-854-0072 fax: 212-854-7946 [email protected] 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2550436 Abstract An increasing trend of economic agents is to form productive associations such as networks, platforms and other hybrids. Subsets of these agents contract with each other to further their network project and these contracts can create benefits for, or impose costs on, agents who are not contract parties. Contract law regulates third party claims against contract parties with the third party beneficiary doctrine, which directs courts to ask whether the contracting parties “intended” to benefit a particular third party.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Buyer Fails to Prove That Letter Evidenced a Valid Requirements Contract Karina Zabicki
    Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 10 | Issue 3 Article 5 1998 Medical Buyer Fails to Prove that Letter Evidenced a Valid Requirements Contract Karina Zabicki Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation Karina Zabicki Medical Buyer Fails to Prove that Letter Evidenced a Valid Requirements Contract, 10 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 217 (1998). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol10/iss3/5 This Recent Case is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Consumer Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recent Cases And, part three required that the Unlike the defendant in EDIAS, companies in Arizona. Moreover, "exercise ofjurisdiction must be Cybersell FLs only contact with there was no evidence that any reasonable." Arizona was the information it Arizonan had enlisted Cybersell FL's Cybersell AZ relied on several posted on its web page. As a result, web assistance. Essentially, cases for support, but the court the court found EDIAS unpersuasive Cybersell FL's presence in Arizona found the cases unpersuasive for Cybersell AZ. was negligible. because the holdings were broader Instead, the Ninth Circuit The court concluded that posting than Cybersell AZ suggested. For determined that Cybersell FL took information on the Internet without example, Cybersell AZ relied on an no steps to "purposefully avail" taking steps to purposefully avail Arizona case where the court stated itself of Arizona's benefits, whereas oneself of the laws of the forum that a defendant should not "escape the defendant in EDIAS did.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Federal Claims No
    In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 10-048C (Filed: November 30, 2011) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RICHARD CARTER AND JERRY GOODWIN, d/b/a R&J FEED, Plaintiffs, Contract; third-party beneficiary; v. Astra; mutuality; consideration THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Stephen Quesenberry, Provo, Utah, with whom was Michael Quesenberry, for plaintiffs. Michael Paul Goodman, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., with whom were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Kirk Manhardt, Assistant Director for defendant. _________ OPINION _________ BRUGGINK, Judge. This is an action for breach of an asserted contract between the United States Department of Agriculture, acting through the Commodity Credit Corporation (“CCC”), and beneficiaries of a drought relief program coordinated by the government and several states. Under the program, the federal government provided large quantities of nonfat dry milk to individual states, which distributed the nonfat dry milk to livestock producers. Before the 1 court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s1 motion for Rule 56(d) discovery. The matter is fully briefed. Oral argument was held on September 6, 2011. For the reasons discussed below, we grant in part and deny in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment and deny plaintiff’s motion for additional discovery. BACKGROUND2 The early 2000s were a time of severe drought in western states, resulting in a significant shortage in livestock feed. To ameliorate the effects of the drought, the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) created a drought relief program in 2002 pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 7285 (2006)3.
    [Show full text]
  • Scott Pearce's Master Essay Method Contracts
    Scott Pearce's Master Essay Method Contracts CONTRACTS APPROACH Minimalist Approach I. Formation II. Defenses to Formation III. Breach IV. Defenses to Breach V. Remedies A. Damages B. Restitution C. Contracts Remedies: Reformation and Rescission D. Equity (Specific Performance) VI. Defenses to Remedies Elaborate Approach A thoughtful applicant needs to make two decisions about any contracts question before doing the analysis: 1. Does the common law or the Uniform Commercial Code apply? 2. Which party is aggrieved? (Who is the "good guy" and who is "bad") Once you have decided these threshold issues, proceed to make a careful examination of the facts through the following intellectual framework: Scott Pearce’s Master Essay Method - Contracts Approach I. Formation: Is there a contract? A. Offer 1. Intent of the offeror to be bound 2. Content of the offer a. Parties b. Subject Matter c. Quantity d. Price 3. Communication of offer to offeree B. Acceptance C. Consideration: a bargained-for exchange II. Defenses to Formation A. Incapacity B. Infancy C. Fraud / Duress D. Statute of Frauds E. Mistake III. Terms of the Contract A. Express Terms B. Implied Terms 1. Prior Dealings 2. Custom and Usage C. Oral Contracts: Parol Evidence Rule Scott Pearce’s Master Essay Method - Contracts Approach IV. Rights of Non Contracting Parties A. Third Party Beneficiaries (vesting rules) B. Assignment of Rights may create third party beneficiaries. C. Delegation of Duties always creates third party beneficiaries. V. Conditions A. Satisfaction of Conditions B. Discharge of Conditions C. Excuse of Conditions VI. Breach A. Minor Breach 1. Substantial performance of the contract by the breaching party 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Case: 4:05-Cv-01772-CDP Doc. #: 182 Filed: 08/04/08 Page: 1 of 27 Pageid
    Case: 4:05-cv-01772-CDP Doc. #: 182 Filed: 08/04/08 Page: 1 of 27 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION FOAM SUPPLIES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:05CV1772 CDP ) THE DOW CHEMICAL ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Foam Supplies, Inc. (FSI) was both a customer and a competitor of defendant The Dow Chemical Company. FSI brought this suit because Dow failed to sell it quantities of methyl diphenyl diisocyanate that FSI contends were required by a contract. The remaining claims are breach of sales contract, tortious interference with business expectancy, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of non-disclosure agreement. Dow seeks summary judgment on the remaining claims. Because the case is set for trial in three weeks, I entered an order ruling on these motions last week, even though I was not yet ready to issue an opinion explaining the reasons for my rulings. This opinion contains those reasons. Dow is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the fraud and breach of non-disclosure agreement claims, as FSI’s proof of several of the essential Case: 4:05-cv-01772-CDP Doc. #: 182 Filed: 08/04/08 Page: 2 of 27 PageID #: <pageID> elements of these claims is lacking. FSI’s breach of contract claim, even if proved at trial, could not support its claim for lost profits, because the contract contains a valid limitation of liability provision excluding consequential damages. Genuine disputes remain on all other elements of the breach of contract claim, which survives because FSI has other claims of damages.
    [Show full text]
  • Force Majeure and Common Law Defenses | a National Survey | Shook, Hardy & Bacon
    2020 — Force Majeure SHOOK SHB.COM and Common Law Defenses A National Survey APRIL 2020 — Force Majeure and Common Law Defenses A National Survey Contractual force majeure provisions allocate risk of nonperformance due to events beyond the parties’ control. The occurrence of a force majeure event is akin to an affirmative defense to one’s obligations. This survey identifies issues to consider in light of controlling state law. Then we summarize the relevant law of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2020 — Shook Force Majeure Amy Cho Thomas J. Partner Dammrich, II 312.704.7744 Partner Task Force [email protected] 312.704.7721 [email protected] Bill Martucci Lynn Murray Dave Schoenfeld Tom Sullivan Norma Bennett Partner Partner Partner Partner Of Counsel 202.639.5640 312.704.7766 312.704.7723 215.575.3130 713.546.5649 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] SHOOK SHB.COM Melissa Sonali Jeanne Janchar Kali Backer Erin Bolden Nott Davis Gunawardhana Of Counsel Associate Associate Of Counsel Of Counsel 816.559.2170 303.285.5303 312.704.7716 617.531.1673 202.639.5643 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] John Constance Bria Davis Erika Dirk Emily Pedersen Lischen Reeves Associate Associate Associate Associate Associate 816.559.2017 816.559.0397 312.704.7768 816.559.2662 816.559.2056 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Katelyn Romeo Jon Studer Ever Tápia Matt Williams Associate Associate Vergara Associate 215.575.3114 312.704.7736 Associate 415.544.1932 [email protected] [email protected] 816.559.2946 [email protected] [email protected] ATLANTA | BOSTON | CHICAGO | DENVER | HOUSTON | KANSAS CITY | LONDON | LOS ANGELES MIAMI | ORANGE COUNTY | PHILADELPHIA | SAN FRANCISCO | SEATTLE | TAMPA | WASHINGTON, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Impracticability - an Overview
    Duquesne Law Review Volume 13 Number 3 Article 5 1975 Commercial Impracticability - An Overview Robert Sommer Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert Sommer, Commercial Impracticability - An Overview, 13 Duq. L. Rev. 521 (1975). Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol13/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Duquesne Law Review by an authorized editor of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. Commercial Impracticability-An Overview Robert Sommer* As shortages become more severe and prices continue to climb, both suppliers and purchasers are confronted with increasingly more burdensome performance arising from long-term, set-price contracts. As performance becomes more burdensome, greater num- bers of beleaguered promisors will turn to § 2-615 of the Uniform Commercial Code in hopes of excusing nonperformance. The pur- pose of this article is to discuss the doctrine of impracticability as codified in § 2-615. This article will discuss the historical antece- dents of the doctrine of impracticability, the mechanics set up by the Code to regulate the operation of the doctrine, case law applying the Code mechanics and, finally, a few questions left unanswered by the Code. I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A. Overview The early common law excused performance of duties imposed by law on grounds of impossibility but refused to excuse performance of contractual obligations on the same grounds.' The theory was that a promise was absolute unless, and only to the extent, qualified by the promisor.
    [Show full text]
  • Requirements Contracts Under the Uniform Commercial Code
    654 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 102 REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE The merchant whose selling market is subject to fluctuation often seeks a means, perhaps at a constant price, to assure a source of supply for his raw materials which will relieve him of the burden of predicting his needs beyond the time required for production. The common method of accom- plishing this is to negotiate a requirements contract whereby the buyer binds himself to purchase all of his requirements from the seller in exchange for a promise from the seller to supply the buyer's needs. A manufacturer, wishing to avoid the problem of correlating his production with future demand, may seek an output contract in which he binds himself to. sell all of his production to the buyer in return for the latter's promise to take all of the output. In this way the seller may shift the burden of marketing his production. Since the problems of output and requirements contracts are in many respects similar, this Note will utilize the term requirements contract to refer generally to both types of agreements.' Requirements contracts have been held void by courts which took the view that the terms of the agreement were too uncertain to be enforced, or that since the buyer did not bind himself to have requirements, performance of the contract depended on the buyer's whim and therefore lacked con- sideration.2 More recent authority, however, recognizes that in the bar- gained-for exchange of promises each party has limited his freedom to some extent and that the terms "requirements" or "needs" supply a suffi- ciently objective standard to be enforceable.3 Thus, today, the typical re- 1.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of the Impossibility Defense Gerhard Wagner Georg-August University of Goettingen
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 27 Article 4 Issue 1 Fall 1995 1995 In Defense of the Impossibility Defense Gerhard Wagner Georg-August University of Goettingen Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Gerhard Wagner, In Defense of the Impossibility Defense, 27 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 55 (1995). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol27/iss1/4 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Essay In Defense of the Impossibility Defense GerhardWagner* I. INTRODUCTION Generally, the common law follows the rule of pacta sunt servanda' under which contractual obligations are absolutely binding on the parties. 2 The impossibility defense is an exception to this general rule.3 Under the impossibility defense, a promisor may default with- out incurring liability for the promisee's expectation damages.4 * Akademischer Rat (Junior Lecturer) at Georg-August University of Goettingen, Germany; J.D., 1989, University of Goettingen; L.L.M., 1995, University of Chicago. The author is deeply indebted to Richard Craswell of the University of Chicago Law School for many helpful comments on an earlier draft of this Essay. 1. "Pacta sunt servanda" means "agreements (and stipulations) of the parties (to a contract) must be observed." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1109 (6th ed. 1990). 2. For an erudite discussion of pacta sunt servanda, see generally Richard Hyland, Pacta Sunt Servanda: A Meditation, 34 VA.
    [Show full text]
  • Requirements and Output Contracts: Quantity Variations Under the Ucc
    IukI 10urnal VOLUME 1973 AuGusT NUMBER 3 REQUIREMENTS AND OUTPUT CONTRACTS: QUANTITY VARIATIONS UNDER THE UCC JOHN C. WEISTART* INTRODUCTION: THE AMBIGUITY OF THE CODE Despite the many advantages which may attend revisions of basic commercial law such as that undertaken in the Uniform Commerical Code, there is a danger that proposal of a broad-based modification will invite commentary on many fronts and so diffuse the attention of both drafters and critics that the relative importance of a particular change may not be appreciated. Such appears to have been the case with re- spect to section 2-306 of the UCC dealing with requirements and out- put contracts. The section is a significant departure from prior uniform sales legislation which attempted no codification of the law in this area.1 If the originality of the codification did not prompt debate, then * Professor of Law, Duke University. A.B. 1965, Illinois Wesleyan University; J.D. 1968, Duke University. 1. Pre-Code decisions treating output and requirements contracts are discussed in IA A. CoRaiN, CoTIRa cTs §§ 156-58 & 168 (1963); 3 id. § 569 (1960); 1 S. WILLisToN, CoNTAcrs § 104A (3d ed. 1957); 3 id. § 421A (3d ed. 1960); 2 S. WmLisroN, SALES §§ 464(a)-(d) (1948); and Havighurst & Berman, Requirement and Output Contracts, 27 ILL. L. REV. 1 (1932). HEREINAFTER THE FOLLOWING CITATIONS WILL BE USED IN THIS ARTICLE: A. CORBIN, CoNTRAcTs (1960) [hereinafter cited as ColuIw]; 3 R. DtJsENBERG & L. KING, SALE AND BuLx SALES (1968) [hereinafter cited as DUESENBERG & KING]; Havighurst & Berman, Requirement and Output Contracts, 27 ILL. L.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Use Requirement Contracts? the Tradeoff Between Hold-Up And
    Why Use Requirement Contracts? The Tradeoff between Hold-Up and Breach June 14, 2015 Eric Rasmusen Abstract A requirements contract is a form of exclusive dealing in which the buyer promises to buy only from one seller if he buys at all. This paper models a most common-sense motivation for such contracts: that the buyer wants to ensure a reliable supply at a pre- arranged price without any need for renegotiation or efficient breach. This requires that the buyer be unsure of his future demand, that a seller invest in capacity specific to the buyer, and that the transaction costs of revising or enforcing contracts be high. Transaction costs are key, because without them a better outcome can be obtained with a fixed- quantity contract. The fixed-quantity contract, however, requires breach and damages. If transaction costs make this too costly, an option contract does better. A requirements contract has the further advantage that it evens out the profits of the seller across states of the world and thus allows for an average price closer to marginal cost. Eric Rasmusen: John M. Olin Faculty Fellow, Olin Center, Harvard Law School; Visiting Professor, Economics Dept., Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (till July 1, 2015). Dan R. and Catherine M. Dalton Professor, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana. Eras- [email protected] or [email protected]. Phone: (812) 345-8573. Messaging: [email protected]. This paper: http://www.rasmusen.org/papers/holdup-rasmusen. pdf. Keywords: Hold-up problem, requirements contracts, relational contracting, exclusive dealing, expectation damages, option contracts, procurement, Uniform Commercial Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Vallario Contract Formation Course Materials Fall 2020 Table of Contents
    Vallario Contract Formation Course Materials Fall 2020 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 2 Sources of Law .............................................................................................................................2 Case briefing .................................................................................................................................3 Legal analysis and IRAC ..............................................................................................................3 MODULE ONE: OFFER ..................................................................................................... 7 A. Offer ........................................................................................................................................7 B. Destruction of the Offer ............................................................................................................9 C. Irrevocable Offers ................................................................................................................. 12 MODULE TWO: COMMON LAW ACCEPTANCE ........................................................ 13 MODULE THREE: OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE UNDER THE UCC ........................... 16 A. Offer and Acceptance under UCC ...................................................................................... 17 B. Battle of the Forms ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]