DOCSLIB.ORG

Monday September 22, 2014 Iowa Contracts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monday September 22, 2014 Iowa Contracts 2014 Basic Skills Course Presented by the Iowa Bar Review School and The Iowa State Bar Association. Monday September 22, 2014 Iowa Contracts Law 4:15 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. Materials by Justice Edward Mansfield Iowa Supreme Court Judicial Branch Building 1111 East Court Avenue Des Moines, IA 50319 IOWA BASIC SKILLS June 2014 CONTRACTS BACK TO BASICS RECENT CASE SUMMARY Justice Michael Streit (with additional updates by Justice Edward Mansfield) 1 Disclaimer: This material does not reflect the views of the Iowa Supreme Court and should not be cited in a court proceeding. 2 BACK TO BASICS Recent Iowa Supreme Court cases demonstrate the importance of returning to basic contract principles when confronted with a contract case. Contract law in Iowa is pretty similar to what you learned in law school. I. IS THERE A CONTRACT? You have to have offer and acceptance (what we now call mutual manifestation of assent) and consideration (a bargained- for exchange). You also have to have sufficiently definite terms. a. There must be an offer. i. Blackford v. Prairie Meadows Racetrack and Casino Inc., 778 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 2010). Facts: Individual was banned after he struck a slot machine and broke the machine’s glass belly. He continued to frequent the casino and later won $9,387. The casino refused to pay. The gambler argued the ban had been lifted, but a jury found he was still banned from the casino when he won the money. The parties focused on whether the casino had the authority to withhold winnings. ii. Holding: The IA Supreme Court focused on basic contract principles. Because Prairie Meadows had banned the gambler from premises, there was no pending offer for him to gamble, the gambler’s decision to gamble was not an acceptance because there was no offer, and the casino was not required to pay any winnings. 1. Don’t forget to argue in the alternative – gambler had not raised the issue of restitution for the money he spent at the casino and was only seeking his winnings. b. There must be mirror-image acceptance. 3 i. Rick v. Sprague, 706 N.W.2d 717 (Iowa 2005). Facts: couple was injured when their car was rear-ended. The offending driver offered to settle their injuries for $5000. The wife accepted the offer and the husband rejected it. The wife argued she should be able to recover the $5000 because the offer was of $5000 each to both the wife and husband. ii. Holding: There was no settlement contract. Language of settlement offer indicated it was meant to settle claims of both wife and husband. Wife’s acceptance regarding only her claims did not meet the mirror-image rule. c. Ratification of acceptance (an acceptance even if not initially valid can be ratified by subsequent conduct). i. Life Investors Ins. Co. of America v. Estate of Corrado, 838 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa 2013). Corrado, an insurance agent, allegedly entered into a settlement with Life Investors, agreeing to pay money to the company. The agreement purported to be signed by Corrado and the parties operated as if the settlement agreement existed for a period of years. Subsequently, a challenge was raised to the signatures on the settlement agreement. ii. Held: Even if Corrado did not sign the settlement agreement, and even if he did not initially know the terms of the agreement, he could ratify it by subsequent conduct. d. There must be consideration. i. Consideration can be either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. It must be “bargained for” which means one promise is sought in exchange for the other’s promise. ii. 1. Meincke v. Northwest Bank & Trust Co., 765 N.W.2d 223 (Iowa 2008). Facts: Mother made a $90,000 loan to her daughter and nephew for their business, secured by the mortgage to a building. When the daughter and nephew wanted an additional loan, the mother signed a subordination agreement. The mother argued the subordination agreement lacked consideration and was not bargained for. 4 2. Holding: The subordination agreement was valid and did not lack consideration. The consideration in exchange for the mother’s agreement to subordinate her loan was the bank’s detriment of agreeing to loan the daughter and nephew additional money. The consideration was bargained for because the mother’s testimony indicates she understood the bank would lend more money if she signed the agreement. II. ENFORCEABILITY. Is there a defense to enforceability of the contract? a. Incapacity is a common example (such as minors, incompetence, duress). b. Unconscionability. The “ice chest on wheels” cases. C&J Vantage Leasing Co. v. Wolfe, 795 N.W.2d 65 (Iowa 2011). Royal Links brought a transaction to the golf course owner. The owner leased a nonmotorized beverage cart on extended terms from C&J. Royals Links agreed to pay theowner more than the amount due C&J in return for the right to display advertising on the cart. Royal Links stopped paying so the owner stopped paying C&J. In defense of C&J’s claim for money due, the owner tried to claim unconscionability. i. Held: Unconscionability can be either procedural or substantive. Procedural unconscionability “involves an advantaged party's exploitation of a disadvantaged party's lack of understanding, unequal bargaining power between the parties, as well as the use of fine print and convoluted language. Substantive unconscionability involves whether or not the substantive terms of the agreement are so harsh or oppressive that no person in his or her right senses would make it. Finally, whether an agreement is unconscionable must be determined at the time it was entered.” This agreement was not unconscionable. The owner was an intelligent business entity that had the opportunity to read the paperwork. The agreement was not so oppressive that no one in their right senses would sign it. A “bad bargain” is not enough to establish unconscionability. c. Public policy is an area where there has been considerable judicial activity. Recent case law highlights the public policy exception to enforceability. Galloway v. State, 790 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 2010). 5 i. Facts: Child injured crossing the street while on a field trip. Parents had signed a waiver of liability prior to the field trip. ii. Holding: Public policy prevents parents from preemptively waiving their children’s causes of action for negligence. This is because (1) parents cannot waive their children’s causes of action post-injury without court approval, (2) children should be protected from the improvident decisions of their parents, and (3) children are ill-suited to identify and avoid risks while participating in an activity. d. Consideration must not violate public policy. i. In re Marriage of Cooper, 769 N.W.2d 582 (Iowa 2009). Facts: Husband had been unfaithful to wife. They entered a reconciliation agreement which provided for a large alimony amount should the husband cheat again. The wife alleged the husband cheated again and the district court relied on the reconciliation agreement. ii. Holding: Reconciliation agreement void because it intrudes on the intimacy of the marital relationship, requires the courts to engage in a he-said/she-said inquiry, and injects fault back into divorce proceeding. iii. Contrast these cases with Staff Management v. Jimenez, 839 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa 2013). An employment contract with an undocumented worker is not void for violation of public policy because it does not inherently have an illegal purpose. Here the consideration did not violate public policy. e. Robinson v. Allied Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 816 N.W.2d 398 (Iowa 2012). This case raises an important general public-policy issue. The plaintiff brought a claim for underinsured motorist (UIM benefits) after more than two years had elapsed from the accident. The policy required suit to be filed for UIM benefits within two years of the accident. The plaintiff alleged she had not discovered the significant worsening of her back condition, and the increase in her potential damages, until more than two years had passed. Held: The two year limit is reasonable and enforceable as a matter of law. Plaintiffs generally can sue the UIM carrier at the same time they sue the tortfeasor. The court declines to 6 endorse a case by case analysis to decide whether the limitations period is reasonable. f. Hint: Be careful when writing contract provisions that may be so onerous they violate public policy. In Robinson, for example, if the two year limitations period in the contract were found unreasonable and violative of public policy, the parties would then have defaulted to the statutory limitations period of ten years from the time of breach. Also, when making public policy challenges to enforcement of a contract, consider both across-the-board (the provision always violates public policy) and as- applied (the provision violates public policy under the facts of this case) arguments. III. CONTRACT MODIFICATION. Was the contract validly modified? a. Modifications may be oral, but still must meet contract requirements. The parol evidence rule does not apply to oral modifications. The parol evidence rule applies to bar prior or contemporaneous terms, conditions, or “understandings” that conflict with (or in some instances supplement) a written contract. i. Passehl v. Passehl, 712 N.W.2d 408 (Iowa 2006). Facts: Doris Passehl died while owning 160 acres of farmland. At the time her son Jerry had lived on a portion of the land and operated an auto salvage business thereon. They had obtained a zoning adjustment to operate the business. Jerry settled with Doris’s estate to keep the land containing his business and a dispute arose regarding the size of the land and the contours of the agreement.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parol Evidence Rules and the Mechanics of Choice
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2019 Parol Evidence Rules and the Mechanics of Choice Gregory Klass Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2048 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3150616 Gregory Klass, Parol Evidence Rules and the Mechanics of Choice, 20 Theoretical Inq. L. 457 (2019). This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Contracts Commons, and the Evidence Commons 457 Parol Evidence Rules and the Mechanics of Choice Gregory Klass* Scholars have to date paid relatively little attention to the rules for deciding when a writing is integrated. These integration rules, however, are as dark and full of subtle difficulties as are other parts of parol evidence rules. As a way of thinking about Hanoch Dagan and Michael Heller’s The Choice Theory of Contracts, this Article suggests we would do better with tailored integration rules for two transaction types. In negotiated contracts between firms, courts should apply a hard express integration rule, requiring firms to say when they intend a writing to be integrated. In consumer contracts, standard terms should automatically be integrated against consumer- side communications, and never integrated against a business’s communications. The argument for each rule rests on the ways parties make and express contractual choices in these types of transactions. Whereas Dagan and Heller emphasize the different values at stake in different spheres of contracting, differences among parties’ capacities for choice — or the “mechanics of choice” — are at least as important.
    [Show full text]
  • Deed of Novation and Variation of The
    DEED OF NOVATION AND VARIATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR LISKEARD HIL.LFORT PRIMARY SCHOOL The Parties to this Deed are: (1) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION of Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BT (the “Secretary of State”); (2) ADVENTURE LEARNING ACADEMY TRUST, a charitable company incorporated in England and Wales with registered company number 08614382 whose registered 12th address is at Michelmores LLP, Floor, 6 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3SF (“Outgoing Academy Trust”); and (3) TRURO & PENWITH ACADEMY TRUST, a charitable company incorporated in England and Wales with registered company number 08880841 whose registered address is at College Road, Truro, Cornwall TR1 3XX (“Incoming Academy Trust”), together referred to as the “Parties”. INTRODUCTION A. Liskeard Hillfort Primary School is an academy within the meaning of the Academies Act 2010 (the “Academy”) and is currently operated by the Outgoing Academy Trust (a multi academy trust). S. The Secretary of State and the Outgoing Academy Trust entered into a Supplemental Funding Agreement on 29 May 2014 (the “Agreement”) for the maintenance and funding of the Academy (attached as Schedule 1 “Existing Supplemental Funding Agreement”). C. It is proposed that, with effect from 00.01 am on 1 April 2019 (“Transfer Date”), the Incoming Academy Trust will assume responsibility for the management and operation of the Academy in succession to Outgoing Academy Trust. D. The Parties wish to novate the Agreement to the Incoming Academy Trust and the Secretary of State and the Incoming Academy Trust wish to vary the terms of the Agreement subject to the provisions of this Deed.
    [Show full text]
  • Contracts Course
    Contracts A Contract A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties with mutual obligations. The remedy at law for breach of contract is "damages" or monetary compensation. In equity, the remedy can be specific performance of the contract or an injunction. Both remedies award the damaged party the "benefit of the bargain" or expectation damages, which are greater than mere reliance damages, as in promissory estoppels. Origin and Scope Contract law is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda, which is usually translated "agreements to be kept" but more literally means, "pacts must be kept". Contract law can be classified, as is habitual in civil law systems, as part of a general law of obligations, along with tort, unjust enrichment, and restitution. As a means of economic ordering, contract relies on the notion of consensual exchange and has been extensively discussed in broader economic, sociological, and anthropological terms. In American English, the term extends beyond the legal meaning to encompass a broader category of agreements. Such jurisdictions usually retain a high degree of freedom of contract, with parties largely at liberty to set their own terms. This is in contrast to the civil law, which typically applies certain overarching principles to disputes arising out of contract, as in the French Civil Code. However, contract is a form of economic ordering common throughout the world, and different rules apply in jurisdictions applying civil law (derived from Roman law principles), Islamic law, socialist legal systems, and customary or local law. 2014 All Star Training, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Contract Law for Paralegals: Chapter 2 Chapter 2
    Contract Law for Paralegals: Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Tab Text CHAPTER 2 The Offer Phase Chapter 2 is in three parts: (1) the classical offer-the promisor’s promise and consideration for that promise; (2) alternatives to classical consideration so an offer is created; and (3) alternative causes of action (reliance cause of action and restitution cause of action) when no offer is created. Chapter 2 begins with a definition of offer-the promisor’s creation of power in the promisee so the promisee can accept and thereby form a contract. Whether this power is created depends on whether the promisor manifests a willingness to enter into a contract by inviting the promisee to agree to the promisor’s terms. Whether the promisor’s manifestation creates this willingness is evaluated on an objective rather than a subjective basis. Offer vs. No Offer Using a Subjective or an Objective Standard is Exhibit 2-1 (50). The Road Map for the Offer Phase is Exhibit 2-2 (52) and can be downloaded from the Online Companion to this text. The Classical Offer Tab Text THE CLASSICAL OFFER-THE PROMISOR’S PROMISE AND CONSIDERATION FOR THAT PROMISE The two components of the classical offer are the promisor’s promise and the consideration for the promisor’s promise. The text clearly differentiates the promisor’s promise from the consideration for that promise. Without a promisor’s promise there can be no offer. Without consideration for the promisor’s promise there can be no offer. Students are forced to dissect the offer into its components rather than use a macro approach.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Southern District of Florida
    Case 9:16-cv-80076-RLR Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2018 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 16-80076-Civ-Rosenberg/Brannon INSPIRED DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. INSPIRED PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC, Defendant. ______________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Its Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) [DE 160], Plaintiff’s response in opposition [DE 162], and Defendant’s reply [DE 165], which has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate disposition [DE 175]. Being fully advised, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion [DE 160] be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that Defendant be awarded $205,946.80 in attorneys’ fees and Defendant’s request for costs be denied. I. BACKGROUND This case arises from Defendant’s, Inspired Products Group, LLC (“IPG”/“Defendant”), alleged breach of its promise to pay $3 million to Plaintiff, Inspired Development Group (“IDG”/“Plaintiff”), in exchange for using IDG’s character car seat concept and licensing its patents. On December 5, 2016, IPG served on IDG a Proposal for Settlement for $300,000 pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.79 (the “Offer”) [DE 160-1], which IDG never accepted. Thereafter, the parties engaged in mediation and filed briefs on motions for summary judgment and motions in limine. On January 25, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment to IPG on Counts II 1 Case 9:16-cv-80076-RLR Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2018 Page 2 of 14 (breach of contract), III (unjust enrichment), and IV (promissory estoppel) of the four-count complaint.1 On February 2, 2017, the remaining count, Count I for breach of contract, was dismissed with prejudice after the parties entered into a stipulated settlement agreement of $50,000, with IPG to make payment upon conclusion of the appeal or other proceedings in this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Scott Miskimon, Partner Smith Anderson Buyer Beware Determining Liability When the Deal Falls Apart by Scott A
    The following article was published in the October 2011 edition of the NCBA’s Real Property Law Section Newsletter. Author: Scott Miskimon, Partner Smith Anderson Buyer Beware Determining Liability When the Deal Falls Apart By Scott A. Miskimon Closing is months away and the buyer asks for a fourth extension The Seller Seeks a Closing of the closing date. The seller throws up his hands at the buyer’s end- less delays and indecision, and under a mistaken belief that the third The seller had long been dealing with a buyer who was unready extension of the closing date has expired, faxes a letter demanding a or indecisive, and who would soon prove inconsistent. Moreover, closing now or the deal is off. Should the buyer’s closing attorney step by mistake the seller believed that June 1, 2007 – rather than July 31, in and try to coax the seller to close? Or should the buyer immedi- 2007 – was the buyer’s deadline to close. In actuality, June 1 was the ately file suit? And what should the seller’s attorney do, particularly end of the buyer’s due diligence period. Under this mistaken belief if in the meantime the seller agrees to sell the land to someone else? as to the closing date, the seller faxed a letter to the buyer’s broker to North Carolina’s appellate courts recently decided the case of Pro- prod the buyer to close. In this letter, the seller’s president noted his file Investments No. 25, LLC v. Ammons East Corporation, 2010 understanding of the deadline for closing, expressed his frustration N.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacob Hale Russell, Rutgers Law School DATE
    TO: UPF Civil Law Seminar Participants FROM: Jacob Hale Russell, Rutgers Law School DATE: 6 December 2017 Thanks for the opportunity to present my work-in-progress on unconscionability later this month. I’m attaching a draft of the project, which is at an early stage and still has many flaws to address. My approach and normative conclusions remain very tentative, so I am eager to hear your views, critiques, and suggestions. In addition, although the piece is not comparative in nature, I would be interested in your thoughts on whether I would benefit from any scrutiny of the distinct approaches to unfair terms in consumer contracts in EU private law and in civil law systems. (It may be that those approaches are too different to be relevant for this particular project and my pri- mary focus — how unconscionability, and more broadly consumer protection law, should deal with the heterogeneity of consumers.) I look forward to talking with you all on 18 December. 1 Unconscionability’s Resurrection Jacob Hale Russell Rutgers Law School DRAFT | December 6, 2017 Abstract Reports of unconscionability’s death are greatly exaggerated. The widespread view among courts and scholars is that the common-law con- tracts doctrine is rarely used, except in limiting clauses that purport to waive consumers’ procedural rights. As this Article documents, the doctrine ap- pears to be quietly flourishing in state courts over recent years, used to strike down substantive terms, including interest rates, in consumer finance con- tracts. To name just a few recent examples, courts have rewritten or voided payday loans, signature loans, overdraft fees, and mortgage contracts on the basis of unconscionability.
    [Show full text]
  • Damages: the Measure of Damages for Anticipatory Repudiation and Seller's Duty to Mitigate, 37 Marq
    Marquette Law Review Volume 37 Article 8 Issue 1 Summer 1953 Damages: The eM asure of Damages for Anticipatory Repudiation and Seller's Duty to Mitigate Fintan M. Flanagan Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Fintan M. Flanagan, Damages: The Measure of Damages for Anticipatory Repudiation and Seller's Duty to Mitigate, 37 Marq. L. Rev. 76 (1953). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol37/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 37 York rule when inter vivos disposition is restricted. Although in the Michel case the contract was binding prior to death and the stock was held to have passed under the will, the court stressed that this was because of the fact situation there, the optionee being also made legatee of the shares. Regardless of the merits of this decision when considered in the light of the Wilson case 21 it seems safe to predict that at least where that peculiar fact situation does not exist, the court would prob- ably adopt the New York or so-called "Federal Rule." Thus until further decisions clarify the present situation, it would seem most advisable for the attorney in drafting one of these agree- ments to fix its provisions with an eye to making the price set acceptable to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and probably the Wisconsin Tax Department will follow suit unless the option holder is bequeathed the shares.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning Law Is
    CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND LEGAL REASONING LAW IS "MAN MADE" IT CHANGES OVER TIME TO ACCOMMODATE SOCIETY'S NEEDS LAW IS MADE BY LEGISLATURE LAW IS INTERPRETED BY COURTS TO DETERMINE 1)WHETHER IT IS "CONSTITUTIONAL" 2)WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG THERE IS A PROCESS WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED (CALLED "PROCEDURAL LAW") I. Thomas Jefferson: "The study of the law qualifies a man to be useful to himself, to his neighbors, and to the public." II. Ask Several Students to give their definition of "Law." A. Even after years and thousands of dollars, "LAW" still is not easy to define B. What does law Consist of ? Law consists of enforceable rule governing relationships among individuals and between individuals and their society. 1. Students Need to Understand. a. The law is a set of general ideas b. When these general ideas are applied, a judge cannot fit a case to suit a rule; he must fit (or find) a rule to suit the unique case at hand. c. The judge must also supply legitimate reasons for his decisions. C. So, How was the Law Created. The law considered in this text are "man made" law. This law can (and will) change over time in response to the changes and needs of society. D. Example. Grandma, who is 87 years old, walks into a pawn shop. She wants to sell her ring that has been in the family for 200 years. Grandma asks the dealer, "how much will you give me for this ring." The dealer, in good faith, tells Grandma he doesn't know what kind of metal is in the ring, but he will give her $150.
    [Show full text]
  • Smashing the Broken Mirror: the Battle of the Forms, UCC 2-207, and Louisiana's Improvements, 53 La
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Louisiana State University: DigitalCommons @ LSU Law Center Louisiana Law Review Volume 53 | Number 5 May 1993 Smashing the Broken Mirror: The aB ttle of the Forms, UCC 2-207, and Louisiana's Improvements N. Stephan Kinsella Repository Citation N. Stephan Kinsella, Smashing the Broken Mirror: The Battle of the Forms, UCC 2-207, and Louisiana's Improvements, 53 La. L. Rev. (1993) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol53/iss5/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Smashing the Broken Mirror: The Battle of the Forms, UCC 2-207, and Louisiana's Improvements N. Stephan Kinsella* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ........................................................... 1556 II. The Mirror Image Rule and the Last Shot Principle ... 1557 III. Formation of Contracts in Louisiana-Present and Future .................................................................. 1558 IV. UCC Section 2-207 Problems and Civil Code Solutions ............................................................... 1560 A. Where Acceptance is "Expressly Conditional" ..... 1560 1. The Meaning of "Expressly Conditional". ..... 1560 2. Article 2601-Omission of "Expressly"-Ap- parent Disadvantages ................................... 1562 3. Article 2601-Omission of "Expressly"- Advantages ................................................ 1563 B. Expression of Acceptance .................................. 1565 C. Additional and Different Terms as Proposals for M odification .................................................... 1566 D. Additional Terms that "Materially Alter" the C ontract ......................................................... 1567 1. "Different Terms" and Acceptance by Silence 1567 2.
    [Show full text]
  • National Bank of Harvey V. Pauly, 280 Nw2d 85
    |N.D. Supreme Court| National Bank of Harvey v. Pauly, 280 N.W.2d 85 (N.D. 1979) Filed May 9, 1979 [Go to Documents] IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA The National Bank of Harvey, a national banking association, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Donald P. Pauly, d.b.a. Don Pauly Cheese, Inc., and Don Pauly Cheese, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant and Appellant Civil No. 9563 Appeal from a Judgment of the First Judicial District Court, the Honorable John O. Garaas, Judge. AFFIRMED. Opinion of the Court by Sand, Justice. Lamb, Schaefer, McNair & Larson, P.O. Box 2189, Fargo, for Plaintiff and Appellee; argued by Leland M. Stenehjem, Jr. Schlosser & Schmitz, P.O. Box 1762, Bismarck, for Defendant and Appellant; argued by Orell D. Schmitz. [280 N.W.2d 86] National Bank of Harvey v. Pauly Civil 9563 Sand, Justice. The issue involved in this case concerns the admissibility of parol evidence to vary the terms of a written notation contained on the face of a check. The appellant, drawer of the check, argued it was error on the part of the trial court to allow the admission of parol evidence to establish an oral agreement varying the terms of a notation which stated the purpose for which the check was issued. We affirm. The National Bank of Harvey, appellee, filed a summons and complaint on 3 August 1977 seeking judgment against Donald P. Pauly, individually, and Don Pauly Cheese, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, for payment on a $30,000 promissory note plus interest. The defendant appellant answered, asserting as an affirmative defense that the note had been satisfied as evidenced by a draft on the account of Don Pauly Cheese, dated 26 July 1975 in the amount of $30,000 payable to the National Bank of Harvey.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Unconscionability: the Case for Using "Knowing Assent" As the Basis for Analyzing Unbargained-For Terms in Standard Form Contracts
    Beyond Unconscionability: The Case for Using "Knowing Assent" as the Basis for Analyzing Unbargained-for Terms in Standard Form Contracts Edith R. Warkentinet I. INTRODUCTION People who sign standard form contracts' rarely read them.2 Coun- sel for one party (or one industry) generally prepare standard form con- tracts for repetitive use in consecutive transactions.3 The party who has t Professor of Law, Western State University College of Law, Fullerton, California. The author thanks Western State for its generous research support, Western State colleague Professor Phil Merkel for his willingness to read this on two different occasions and his terrifically helpful com- ments, Whittier Law School Professor Patricia Leary for her insightful comments, and Professor Andrea Funk for help with early drafts. 1. Friedrich Kessler, in a pioneering work on contracts of adhesion, described the origins of standard form contracts: "The development of large scale enterprise with its mass production and mass distribution made a new type of contract inevitable-the standardized mass contract. A stan- dardized contract, once its contents have been formulated by a business firm, is used in every bar- gain dealing with the same product or service .... " Friedrich Kessler, Contracts of Adhesion- Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract, 43 COLUM. L. REV. 628, 631-32 (1943). 2. Professor Woodward offers an excellent explanation: Real assent to any given term in a form contract, including a merger clause, depends on how "rational" it is for the non-drafter (consumer and non-consumer alike) to attempt to understand what is in the form. This, in turn, is primarily a function of two observable facts: (1) the complexity and obscurity of the term in question and (2) the size of the un- derlying transaction.
    [Show full text]