DOCSLIB.ORG

Contracts Outline (Waldron, Spring 2012)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contracts Outline (Waldron, Spring 2012) Law 108A: Contracts G. Morgan (Waldron, Spring 2012) | Page 1 Contracts Outline (Waldron, Spring 2012) Exam Approach Step Details Key Details Read the question Use the specific terms of the question to guide reading of fact pattern / Identify issue(s) READ THE QUESTION additional materials, and to determine the type of response required Identify required response Read the fact pattern Identify key issues and facts that relate to the question Key issue(s) Key fact(s) Outline response Identify the legal issue(s) Legal issue(s) Identify relevant legislative provisions and case law Case law Identify relevant information from fact pattern Relevant facts Response framework (1) Identify issue (i.e. are the representations a collateral warranty? Check response to outline does the parol evidence rule bar any claims?) Proofread (a) Historical overview (if applicable) (2) State principle of law (with case reference, not necessary to be case name) (3) Discuss how the law applies to particular situation in fact pattern (a) State the test (b) Apply to the facts (c) Distinguish from either leading principle or contrary case(s) (d) Flag any assumptions (e) Address policy considerations (4) Reach tentative conclusion on outcome Law 108A: Contracts G. Morgan (Waldron, Spring 2012) | Page 2 Road Map Contract formation Parol evidence rule is there a contract? admissibility pleading bilateral/unilateral/non-bargain? substantive written K = total agreement OR written K + offer & acceptance (correspondence?) parol evidence = total agreement formalization & certainty Contract Issues intention contract formation consideration rectification existing contract modification non est factum consideration? promissory estoppel? mistaken identification privity of K unfairness rd 3 party seeking to enforce K undue influence rd 3 party relying on limitation clause duress does the written K constitute the whole agreement (parol unconscionable evidence)? penalties/forfeitures Non-bargain promises (i.e. no consideration) illegality contracts under seal common law past consideration statutory promissory estoppel? public policy Contract interpretation restraint of trade representations ambiguity innocent misrepresentation mistake fraudulent misrepresentation (tort) mistake in contractual terms negligent misrepresentation (tort) mistake in assumption written contract equitable mistake forms: tickets, standard form rectification interpretation of terms (contra proferendum) frustration exclusion or limitation clause(s) commercial context / factual matrix collateral warranty inconsistent w/ written contract varies/adds/modifies written contract Law 108A: Contracts G. Morgan (Waldron, Spring 2012) | Page 3 Table of Contents Topic Page Topic Page General Materials Mistaken Identity (of void and voidable contracts) Guiding Principles 4 Third-parties Reliance 15 Vocabulary 4 Void and Voidable Contracts 15 Remedies in Contracts 5 Mistaken Identity vs. Mistaken Belief in Creditworthiness 15 Policy Considerations 5 Non est factum (“it is not my deed”) Contract Enforceability 5 Principle 15 Bargains: Offers and Acceptances Parol Evidence Rule Qualities of a Commercial Bargain 6 Procedural Element 16 Battle of the forms 6 Pleas 16 Tendering 6 Substantive Element 17 Bargains: Formalization and Certainty Requirements for Collateral Contract 17 Spectrum of Certainty and Enforceability 6 Printed Forms/Tickets 18 Agreement on Price / Unfixed Prices 7 Clauses Excluding Liability Interpretation Approach 7 Principle 18 Bargains: Correspondence History of UK Jurisprudence / UKHL v. Denning 18 General Rule 7 UK Approach 19 Post box Acceptance Rule 7 Canadian Approach 19 Risk Allocation 8 Misrepresentations Instantaneous Correspondence 8 Historical Context 19 Jurisdiction 8 Representation Collateral K 20 Bargains: Consideration Remedies 20 General Rule 8 Negligent Misrepresentation 20 What constitutes consideration? 8 Relationship between Tort and Contract Law 20 Gift vs. contract 9 Unfairness: Unconscionability, Undue Influence & Duress Contract interpretation 9 Principle 20 Pre-existing Duties 9 General Application 21 Existing Contract Modification 9 Unconscionability 21 Relaxing the General Rule 10 Undue Influence 21 Compromise 10 Spousal Guarantors 22 Charitable Donations 10 Duress 22 Intention Penalties & Forfeitures Principle 10 Penalty 23 Non-bargain Promises Forfeiture 23 Agreements under seal 11 Contract Illegality Past consideration 11 Common Law Illegality 24 Reliance and Estoppel 11 Statutory Illegality 24 Fact Estoppel 12 Mitigating the Consequences of Illegality 24 Waiver 12 Mistake Promissory Estoppel 12 General Application 25 “Pointy Shield” 13 Mistake about Contractual Terms 25 Unilateral Contracts Mistake in Assumptions 26 Principle 13 Equitable Mistake 27 Requirements 13 Unilateral Mistake 27 Government agents 14 Rectification Third-party Beneficiaries Principle 27 Privity of Contract 14 Frustration The Eurymedon Approach 14 Principle 27 Canadian Approach 14 Modern Rule (the Sea Angel Approach) 28 Law 108A: Contracts G. Morgan (Waldron, Spring 2012) | Page 4 Guiding Principles contract A promise that the law will enforce. nemo dat quod habet “you can’t give what you don’t have” Supplementary Definitions and Policy Arguments Vocabulary Term Definition Agency Mechanism by which a person contracts on behalf of a 3rd party. Principal (3rd party) confers authority to agent to make Ks or dispose of property on behalf of principal. As agent authorized to act 3rd party, principal (not agent) bound directly to other party, and liable for contractual obligations / receives contractual benefits. Agency agreements specify the scope within which the agent can act (i.e. the types of Ks entered into). Assignment Legal transference of right or property that transfers all associated rights and obligations. Historical limitations on assignment rights mostly eliminated by statute or equity. Ex: B owes A $500. A sells B’s debt to C for $400. C takes the K subject to the equities and state of accounts in the K subject to the equities in the K: C’s rights are no greater and no less than A’s rights subject to the state of accounts: if B paid $100 to A, B will only have to pay $400 to C no requirement for permission of B unless K has a prohibitions on assignment (or falls within exceptions for personal service Ks) Caveat emptor “let the buyer beware” no recovery from seller for defects in property unless concealed/misrepresented Charterparties Part of a special body of law around mercantile shipping Key contractual term: any deviation from the route specified in the K is considered a serious breach of K (can only accept significant risks of shipping on an agreed-upon route) Condition Damages and right to repudiate contract. Contra proferentem K interpretation principle: ambiguous term will be construed against the interests of the party that wrote it K without term Implied provision that the K can be ended by either party with reasonable notice, or with cause. Common law provision for notice can be specified in the K. If not, case law determines what constitutes reasonable notice. Fixed term K Termination at end of K term, or with cause. Innominate term Depending on type of breach: repudiation and damages (condition-like) OR damages (warranty-like) Integration clause Clause stating that the written document contains all terms of agreement (excludes other representations) Liquidated damages Genuine forecast of the damages that a party might suffer if K is broken Nonfeasance Failure to perform an act required by law Partially executed K Exchange of intangible promise and tangible consideration. Statute of frauds Requirement that certain kinds of contracts (incl. those for the disposition of land) are only enforceable in writing. In BC, minimal writing requirements still in place although may be overcome by some evidence. Subrogation Legal mechanism under common law by which an insurer of one party steps into that party’s shoes so to have the benefit of that party’s rights and remedies against a third party. Typically a non-subrogation clause to prevent recovery against policy holder and policy holder’s family. Void Having no legal force and therefore not binding at law. Voidable Capable of being void. Warranty A promise that has contractual force. Expectation damages. Wholly executory K Exchange for a promise for a promise. “Who’s in breach?” After entering a K, one of the parties is dissatisfied w/K. Instead of breaching, looks for the other party to (“game”) breach in order to declare the K breached (and therefore repudiated). However, the other party will claim that the breach was not sufficient to repudiate K and argue that the first party “jumped the gun” and therefore was the party to breach. Law 108A: Contracts G. Morgan (Waldron, Spring 2012) | Page 5 Remedies in Contracts Remedies Details Estoppel Method of stopping the other party of raising an argument or doing something that the other party would otherwise do. Shield, not a sword. Fact estoppel: A asserts a fact. B relies on fact. A will be estopped from rescinding original fact. Promissory estoppel: A promises to do something, or not do something. B relies on promise. A will be estopped from rescinding promise (Hughes, Central London Property Trust) Expectation in tender K, balance of probabilities whether plaintiff would have received K if non-compliant bid rejected. damages Expectation damages = full profit of the job (MJB Enterprises) Repudiation Due to a breach
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE DOCTRINE of CARLISLE and CUMBERLAND BANKING CO. V
    661 THE DOCTRINE OF CARLISLE AND CUMBERLAND BANKING CO. v. BRAGG.* The facts of this well known case. are that Bragg was induced by the fraud of Rigg to, sign a guarantee of the latter's debts upon;. the representation that it was an insurance paper. On an occasion when Rigg and the defendant had been drinking together, Rigg produced a paper purporting to relate to insurance, and asked Bragg to sign it, explaining that a similar paper which Bragg had signed on a previous day had become wet and blurred by the rain. The defendant signed without reading it. In an action brought by the Bank an the guarantee,-Bragg pleaded non est factum. The jury found that the defendant did not know that the document was a guarantee, and that he was negligent in signing. The Court of Appeal held that, in contemplation of law, Bragg had never signed the instrument, and that his negligence did not estop him from setting up the plea of anon est factum. Before this decision there was a strong current of long recognized authority for the proposition that a person who negligently executes an instrument is estopped as against third parties who acquired rights under it.' Thoroughgood's Case is the first decision.. Lord Coke held that if a deed be explained in wards other than the truth it shall not bind the unlettered layman who is deceived.3 Skinner reports a case where the court commented on a defendant's liability under a carelessly signed lease; "being able to read it was his own folly, otherwise if he had been unlettered."3a Sheppard declares that if a party who can read seals a deed without reading it, or if illiterate or blind, without requiring it to be read over to him, then although the deed be contrary to his mind, it is good and unavoid- able.4 Thus, in the absence of negligence the illiteracy of the person *This article was submitted in the competition for the Carswell Essay Prize in Dalhousie Law School and was given first place by the Faculty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Objective Theory ®F Contract and the Rule in V Estrange V
    VOL. L11 SEPTEMBER 1974 SEPTEM RE No. 3 THE OBJECTIVE THEORY ®F CONTRACT AND THE RULE IN V ESTRANGE V. GRAUCOB Halifax, N.S. Introduction In a recent article, J. R. Spencer criticizes the so-called rule in L'Estrange v. Graucob' on the ground that it contradicts the settled theory of agreement which underlies the law of contract generally? It seems, he says, to be generally accepted that a person who signs a contractual document may not dispute his agreement to any of the terms which it contains, unless he can establish one of three defences : (a) fraud, (b) misrepresentation, or (c) non est factum.' Spencer submits that this rule is wrong, and that there is a fourth defence which ought to be open to the party who signed the document, namely the defence that he simply did not agree to the term in question. Everyone says that the common law theory of agreement is, "objective", which means that the parties have to be judged by what they outwardly ap- peared to decide rather than by what they inwardly meant to decide. But this, Spencer claims, is vague, and to see what this "objective" theory really means we must look at the cases upon which it is based. One of these cases is Smith v. Hughes.' Although it usually features under "mistake", mistake is often no more than the other side of agreement. According to Smith v. Hughes, * R. A. Salnek, of the Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. '[193412 K.B. 394. Signature, Consent, and the 11le in L'Estrange v.
    [Show full text]
  • Important Concepts in Contract
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Practical concepts in Contract Law Ehsan, zarrokh 14 August 2008 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10077/ MPRA Paper No. 10077, posted 01 Jan 2009 09:21 UTC Practical concepts in Contract Law Author: EHSAN ZARROKH LL.M at university of Tehran E-mail: [email protected] TEL: 00989183395983 URL: http://www.zarrokh2007.20m.com Abstract A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce. Contract law is based on the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (literally, promises must be kept) [1]. Breach of a contract is recognised by the law and remedies can be provided. Almost everyone makes contracts everyday. Sometimes written contracts are required, e.g., when buying a house [2]. However the vast majority of contracts can be and are made orally, like buying a law text book, or a coffee at a shop. 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 or restitution). Contractual formation Keywords: contract, important concepts, legal analyse, comparative. The Carbolic Smoke Ball offer, which bankrupted the Co. because it could not fulfill the terms it advertised In common law jurisdictions there are three key elements to the creation of a contract. These are offer and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations. In civil law systems the concept of consideration is not central. In addition, for some contracts formalities must be complied with under what is sometimes called a statute of frauds.
    [Show full text]
  • Rectification Non Est Factum
    • Mistakenly advertised for $66 • True price in fact $3,854 • Online error corrected after a few hours • A’s (group of friends) purchased more than 1,600 printers • Held • A’s were aware of the mistake • Described as ‘predatory pack hunters’ • Knowledge of mistake + unconscionable conduct sufficient for equity to set aside contract Rectification Rectification, where available, will amend a contract to give effect to the true intention of the parties. In the case of unilateral mistake, rectification will only be ordered where: It is established by clear and conceiving proof that at the time of the execution of the instrument the relevant party or parties at the case may be had an actual intention as to the effect which the instrument would have which was inconsistent with the effect which the instrument as executed did have in some clearly identified way. The following prerequisites must be establishes: • One party must be mistaken about a particular term of the contract • The unmistaken party must be aware of the other party’s mistake • The unmistaken party must not have drawn the mistake to the other party’s attention The following elements are also required before rectification will be granted: • The unmistaken party must benefit from resisting rectification • The unmistaken party must be guilty of some sharp practice or fraud in not revealing the mistake Even in cases where fraud or sharp practice has not been established, the courts have generally required some sort of unconscionable conduct on the part of the unmistaken party before
    [Show full text]
  • Simmons Da Silva LLP - 1 / 3 - 31.07.2018 2
    1 The Defence of Failure to Understand and Other Reasons for ILA admin · Friday, March 24th, 2017 By Bruce Duggan Independent Legal Advice One of the most frequent questions/irritants Borrowers raise/experience in a commercial transaction is the requirement for their spouse to obtain independent legal advice. Typically, the complaint is that the spouse knows that what they are signing is a guarantee and that it is an inconvenient and needless expense to have to obtain independent legal advice, especially if it is being repeated for a second time in the case of refinancing. The function of independent legal advice is to overcome defences that the Bank would not have been aware of. Defences such as failure to understand, mistake, undue influence, duress, fraud and misrepresentation are ready weapons available to guarantors. If successful, any of these defences would leave the guarantee or other loan documents signed by such person unenforceable. This article reviews the defence of failure to understand also known as non est factum. Failure to Understand/Non Est Factum Simmons da Silva LLP - 1 / 3 - 31.07.2018 2 The basis of this defence is that the person signing did not understand the document signed, that the document was represented as being different from what the person signing thought they were signing and they were not careless in signing. Where this defence is established it becomes the Bank’s obligation to prove that the person signing did know what they were signing. Such “at risk” people can include those who have, for example little formal education, a lack of fluency in English, little understanding of the purpose of the financing or a lack of understanding regarding the loan terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents EXAM STRUCTURE
    Laws1075 --- Contracts Contents EXAM STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 CONTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 I. Identify term ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 II. Incorporation ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 III. Wholly in writing OR Partly oral or partly written ............................................................................................................. 5 IV. Construing term ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 V. Terminate ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 A. Terminate by agreement ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 B. Terminate
    [Show full text]
  • Kinghorn, Sean and Kinghorn, Judy Ann V
    [2020] JMSC Civ 196 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN THE CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2017HCV04289 BETWEEN SEAN KINGHORN 1st CLAIMANT JUDY ANN KINGHORN 2nd CLAIMANT AND SILVER STAR MOTORS LTD DEFENDANT IN CHAMBERS Sean Kinghorn instructed by Kinghorn and Kinghorn for the Claimants. Christopher Dunkley instructed by Phillipson Partners for the Defendant. Heard: July 28, 2020 and October 2, 2020 Application for Summary Judgment – Striking Out – Non Est Factum – Real Prospect of Success – Privity of Contract – Mediation Agreement T. HUTCHINSON, J INTRODUCTION [1] There are two applications before me for ruling, the first in time was filed by the Claimants on the 9th of October 2018. It is supported by an affidavit and supplemental affidavit provided by the 2nd Claimant which were filed on the 9th of October 2018 and 10th of December 2019 respectively. In this notice the Claimants seek the following orders; - 2 - 1. That pursuant to Rule 26.3 (b) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Code Rules, the Defence herein be struck out on the grounds that: it is an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court and/or is likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; the Defence discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the instant Claim. 2. That pursuant to Rule 15.2, Summary Judgement (sic) in respect of liability be granted in favour of the Claimants on the ground that the Defendant has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the instant Claim. 3. That a date be set for the hearing of an Assessment of Damages in this matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Non Est Factum
    Topic 7 - Factors affecting the contract Content& Topic 7 - Factors affecting the contract ..................................................................................................... 2 Factors affecting the contract - non est factum ...................................................................................... 3 Factors affecting the contract – mistake ................................................................................................ 3 Types of mistakes ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Mistake – common mistake - void ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Mistake – mutual mistake ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Mistake – unilateral mistake ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Factors affecting the contract – Misrepresentation ................................................................................ 7 Factors affecting the contract –Undue influence ................................................................................... 8 Factors affecting the contract – Unconscionable conduct .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Claim No.699 of 2008
    IN THE SUPRME COURT OF BELIZE, .A.D. 2010 CLAIM NO. 699 OF 2008 (BRUCE SANCHEZ CLAIMANT ( BETWEEN( AND ( (PAMELA ROBATEAU MARTINEZ DEFENDANT Before: Hon Justice Sir John Muria 1 March 2010 Counsel: Mr. E. Flowers SC for the Claimant Ms. A. Segura­Gillett for the Defendant J U D G M E N T CLAIM – contract – agreement to lease business – land tenancy principles not applicable – alleged signing of contract of employment, not business contract – defence of non est factum – principles applicable MURIA J.: This claim by the claimant arose out of a business lease agreement entered into between the claimant and defendant on 12 th July 2007. The business concern that was the subject of the business lease agreement was called Radiance Jewelry and ABC Framing. The claimant’s claim is for the sum of $39,905.79 being money payable by the defendant to the claimant for goods supplied to the defendant. The claim is denied by the defendant. 1 Brief background The claimant is the owner of the jewelry and framing business known as Radiance Jewelry and ABC Framing located in the Commercial Centre building in Belize City. Previously the claimant leased his same jewelry and framing businesses to other previous lessees until June 2007. Then on 12 th July 2007, the claimant entered into another lease agreement over his Radiance Jewelry and ABC Framing business. This time, it was with the defendant who was the lessee. It was a term of the agreement that the claimant would supply to the defendant all the merchandise to be sold in the business and the defendant would pay for them as per the invoices and at certain discount percentages.
    [Show full text]
  • Contracts February 2020
    PLEASE NOTE: As an enhancement to the materials we have created, where possible, external web links to those cases and legislation that were available on the CanLII website. Please note, however, that not all links are reliable. The incorrect links appear to be especially problematic for the statutes, especially if the complete citation for the statute is not present at that exact spot in the materials. If you use the web links, please always double-check to ensure that you are being directed to the correct place. ------ The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society has prepared these Bar Review Materials for the sole purpose of assisting applicants to prepare for the Nova Scotia Bar Examination. These materials are reviewed and updated annually, and published May 1 each year as study materials for the upcoming July and January exams. These current materials are the study outlines for the July 2020 and January 2021 Bar Examinations and may be relied upon for that sole purpose. The materials are not intended to provide legal advice, and should not be relied upon by articled clerks, transfer applicants, lawyers or members of the public as a current statement of the law. Members of the public who access these materials are urged to seek legal advice and are specifically warned against reliance on them in any legal matter or for pursuit of any legal remedy. The Society will not be liable for any use you made of these materials, beyond their intended purpose. CONTRACTS FEBRUARY 2020 CONTENTS: I. WHAT IS A CONTRACT? .............................................................................................................................. 1 II. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CONTRACTS ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Canada and the Common Law of Contract
    [Vol. 17 The Supreme Court of Canada and The Common Law of Contract by Philip Slayton* I Introduction On December 10, 1949, assent was given to "An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act." 1 This Act abolished appeals from Canada to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, making the Supreme Court of Canada the final court of appeal for Canada.2 The Supreme Court became judicial master in the Canadian house. Abolition of appeals was considered a mark of the maturity of the Canadian state. Many hoped that it would lead to development of a law more able to respond to Canadian conditions. The Ottawa Journal commented in 1938 that "in recent years in particular Privy Council decisions have shown hardly an inkling of things in Canada in consequence of modern and Empire change." 8 Canadian development was characterized by one commentator as "arrested by the judicial barrier to progressive change erected by the Privy Council, and raised even higher as time moves on and new conditions arise."' 4 Professor MacGuigan has described the Privy Council as sitting out its days in "judicial seclusion an ocean removed from the colony-state, with no knowledge of the geographic, eco- *B.A. (Hons.) (Man.), BA. (Oxon.), B.C.L. (Oxon.), Assistant Professor of Law, McGill University. 113 Geo. 6, c. 37. 1949, 2nd session, Vol. 1. 2 Section 7 of the Act read in part: "Notwithstanding anything in section three of this Act, an appeal from or in respect of a judgment pronounced in (a) a judicial proceeding that was commenced prior to the coming into force of this Act ..
    [Show full text]
  • Insurance a Daily Bulletin Listing Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia
    Tuesday, 10 March 2015 Insurance A Daily Bulletin listing Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia Search Engine Click here to access our search engine facility to search legal issues, case names, courts and judges. Simply type in a keyword or phrase and all relevant cases that we have reported in Benchmark since its inception in June 2007 will be available with links to each case. Executive Summary (1 minute read) Ell, Richard Austin v Ell, Stephen Maxwell (NSWCA) - Wills – testator intended to release debt unconditionally under Will Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton (NSWSC) – contract - signatures on signing pages bound party to guarantee – plea of non est factum failed Australian Vintage Ltd v Belvino Investments No. 2 Pty Ltd (as trustee of the McGuigan Simeon Trust ABN 76965280510) (NSWSC) – commercial lease of vineyard – expert determination clause - expert’s determination not set aside Campbelltown City Council v WSN Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd (NSWSC) – contract – dispute resolution regime – declaration that party not entitled to refer dispute to expert refused Chan v First Strategic Development Corporation Ltd (in liq) (QCA) – corporations – factual findings open to primary judge– appeal dismissed Simmons v Love (WASC) – contract for sale of land – buyers’ claim for damages for late settlement dismissed Page 1 Summaries with links (5 Minute Read) Ell, Richard Austin v Ell, Stephen Maxwell [2015] NSWCA 38 Court of Appeal of New South Wales Basten, Ward & Gleeson JJA Wills - contract - estoppel - testator made
    [Show full text]