DOCSLIB.ORG

Contracts Mnemonics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contracts Mnemonics CONTRACTS MNEMONICS 1) The ingredients for a valid contract are TACO: T – Definite TERMS, express or implied A – ACCEPTANCE of terms C – CONSIDERATION O – OFFER inviting acceptance 1a) Eat a PEAR to recover in quasi contract: P – Plaintiff’s good faith PERFORMANCE of services, E – Plaintiff’s EXPECTATION of compensation; A – ACCEPTENCE of the services performed; and R – For the recovery of REASONABLE value of the services performed 2) An offer expires when it gets TIRED: T – Reasonable TIME after an offer is made, or after expiration date expressly stated in an offer I – Mental INCAPACITY or death of offeror or offeree R – REVOCATION of an offer communicated to an offeree before acceptance E – EXPRESS or implied rejection communicated to offeror D – DESTRUCTION of the subject matter of the offer or intervening illegality terminates an offer by operation of law 3) Options can DIE by: D – DESTRUCTION of subject matter I – Intervening ILLEGALITY E – EXPIRATION of a stated option time extinguishes the option 4) Generally, contracting parties are free to modify a 3rd party beneficiary (3PB) K, unless, prior to receiving notice of the K modification, the 3PB got MAD: M – MANIFESTED an assent called for in the 3PB K, at the request of one of the contracting parties (i.e., accepted a K offer arising from the 3PB K) A – Commenced a breach of K ACTION against the promisor, or D – DETRIMENTALLY relied on the K 5) Contract assignments may involve the ADA: A – ASSIGNMENT of a contractual right to collect money owed under the K D – DELEGATION of the performance required under the K A – ASSUMPTION of liability for performing the K ©2018 Pieper Bar Review 1 6) A gratuitous assignment becomes irrevocable, and a second assignee prevails over a prior assignee of the contract when J.P.N.C.: J – Recovers a JUDGMENT P – Gets PAID, or NC – Enters a NEW CONTRACT with the obligator 7) Absent express language in a K prohibiting assignment, K rights are freely assignable, except those of SIR: S – Where a STATUTE expressly prohibits the assignment of a K right (but if that claim is reduced to judgment, it is assignable) I – Where the assignment is coupled with an IMPROPER delegation of a duty under the K to a person unqualified to fulfill that duty R – Where the assignment increased the RISK to the other contracting party 8) Statues prohibit assignment of a WASP: W – WORKER’S COMPENSATION payments A – ALIMONY or child support payments S – SPENDTHRIFT TRUSTS income P – PERSONAL INJURY or wrongful death clamp 9) Look at HAIL to determine whether a breach is material or immaterial: H – HARDSHIP on breaching party if total material breach is declared A – AMOUNT of benefit bestowed on non–breaching party I – Whether breach was INNOCENT L – LIKELIHOOD of full performance being achieved 10) Breach of contract defenses are I3 FU2MED & I S2IP: I – INFANCY I – INSANITY – INCOMPETENCY I – INTOXICATION F – FRAUD U – UNCONSCIONABILITY U – UNDUE INFLUENCE M – MISTAKE E – EQUITABLE DEFENSES D – DURESS I – IMPOSSIBILITY of performance S – STATUTE OF FRAUDS S – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS I – ILLEGALITY P – PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE 11) Lack of contractual capacity arises from the 3 I’s: I – INFANCY I – INTOXICATION I – Mental INCOMPETENCY ©2018 Pieper Bar Review 2 12) SI2R M is a fraud: S – SCIENTER I – D lied with an INTENT to defraud the P I – P suffered an economic INJURY R – P justifiably RELIED on D’s misrepresentation M – D misrepresented a MATERIAL fact, which induced P to enter the K 13a)Badges of constructive fraud SHIRTS: S – SECRETLY done H – HASTILY done I – INADEQUACY of consideration R – A close RELATIONSHIP between the transferor and transferee T – TRANSFEROR continues to the control property S – SCIENTIFIC (knowledge) of the creditor’s claim, an inability to pay it after the transfer. 13) A unilateral mistake in calculating figures may allow the mistaken party the remedy of equity of rescission, if he calls the COPS: C – The computational mistake was COMMUNICATED to the other party before that person changed his/her position in reliance on those mistaken figures O – The mistake involved was one of ORDINARY negligence P – The mistaken party gave PROMPT notice of the mistake S – The mistake will impose SUBSTANTIAL hardship on the party if not corrected 14) The following MRS SLY contracts must be in writing, subscribed by the party to be charged with the breach (i.e., must contain defendant’s signature): M – MARRIAGE contracts R – REAL ESTATE contracts S – SURETY contracts S – UCC Article 2 SALES CONTRACTS for $500 or more L – LEASES longer than 1 year Y – Contracts not capable of complete performance within 1 YEAR 15) INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FOR A FUTURE MNEMONIC 16) There are 4 T–CUP elements for a constructive trust: T – TRANSFER of property in reliance on promise C – Existence of CONFIDENTIAL or fiduciary relationship U – UNJUST enrichment to transferee of property or to some third party, AND P – PROMISE, express or implied, to hold property for plaintiff’s benefit, which promise has been breached ©2018 Pieper Bar Review 3 17) A THUG may render an illegal contract enforceable, based on: T – TYPE of illegality & extent to which the public is harmed H – HARM that forfeiture would cause if contract was declared unenforceable due to illegality; ct looks to see whether contract has been substantially performed U – UNJUST enrichment (a windfall) to party asserting illegality defense G – Relative GUILT of each party 18) The theory of impossibility frequently involves the 4 Ds: D – DEATH D – DANGER to life/ill health D – DESTRUCTION of the subject matter of the law suit D – DELAYS, temporarily causing performance to become impracticable or impossible 19) OF MICE2 permits parole evidence: O – To establish an ORAL condition precedent to legal effectiveness of contract, provided it doesn’t contradict express term(s) of the contract F – A party cannot invoke the Parole Evidence Rule to shield that party from allegations of FRAUD or Misrepresentation M – To establish MUTUAL Mistake or claim for reformation of contract I – To establish ILLEGALITY C – To establish failure of CONSIDERATION E – To EXPLAIN ambiguous or missing terms E – To show that no ENFORCEABLE agreement was ever intended 20) Contract law does not allow damages recovery for CAPS: C – To recover consequential damages, unless they were within the CONTEMPLATION OF BOTH PARTIES when the contract was executed A – Damages that party could have AVOIDED P – Damages for PAIN & suffering or emotional distress resulting from a breached contract, even if such damages were foreseeable S – SPECULATIVE damages aren’t recoverable (all damages must be proven within a reasonable certainty) 21) Generally, parties can put whatever terms they’d like into a K, except for PLUS: P – Terms that violate PUBLIC POLICY L – Terms providing for an excessive amount of LIQUIDATED DAMAGES U – Terms that are UNCONSCIONABLE S – Clauses providing that one party can seek SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE in the event of a breach (the contract does NOT have to enforce these clauses) 22) Apply a TISSUE to a covenant restricting a former employee from competing: T – TIME restriction must be reasonable (usually two years or fewer) I – INABILITY of the employee to gain work elsewhere S – The geographic SPACE/SCOPE of the restriction must be as narrow as possible (must only be to the extent necessary to protect employer’s interest) SUE – The employee services must be SPECIAL, UNIQUE, or EXTRAORDINARY ©2018 Pieper Bar Review 4 SALES MNEMONICS 23) ICOP limits the Perfect Tender Rule: I – INSTALLMENT contracts C – Timely delivery was COMMERCIALLY IMPRACTIBLE by an event not contemplated by the parties. O – Delivery in good faith, OBJECTIVELY and reasonably believing the goods would be acceptable to the buyer P – PRIOR TO DELIVERY DATE set forth in the contract, conforming goods are delivered to replace the nonconforming goods 24) Additional terms will not be added to the contract when OCAN: O – The offeror OBJECTS to additional terms within a reasonable time C – The offer expressly CONDITIONS the agreement on accepting the terms in the offer as they are A – The additional terms materially ALTER the offer N – Either or both parties are NON–MERCHANTS 25) A J STRAW clause materially alters an offer if it would cause surprise or hardship to the offeror if the offeror was not made aware of its existence: J – Bestowing JURISDICTION on a particular court, or requiring offeror to consent to jurisdiction in particular state S – Shortening the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS to sue for non–conforming goods T – Limiting TORT liability or limiting a buyer’s right to sue for consequential damages R – Altering UCC rules for RISK OF LOSS A – Adding an ARBITRATION CLAUSE (unless customary to do so in the trade) W – Adding a clause negating a WARRANTY (e.g., one of merchantability or fitness) 26) Exceptions to the Statute of Frauds requirement are SWAMP: S – Contracts for SPECIALLY manufactured goods W – WAIVER A – Judicial ADMISSION of contract M – “MERCHANT MEMORANDUM” P – PART PERFORMANCE 27) If a sales contract is silent on a topic, the UCC implies the following CIDER rules: C – Seller is not obligated to extend CREDIT to the buyer I – Buyer has the right to INSPECT the seller’s tendered goods (except no right to inspect when the transaction involves a bill of lading) D – Seller’s tender of DELIVERY is implied to be at seller’s place of business, unless both parties know that the goods are located elsewhere E – Buyer and seller must EXCHANGE performance concurrently R – RISK OF LOSS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freight Payment Terms and "Risk of Loss"
    Freight Payment Terms and "Risk of Loss" By: George Carl Pezold We often get questions about which party (the shipper or the consignee) is entitled to file a claim for freight loss or damage. The Uniform Straight Bill of Lading (and most bills of lading used by shippers and carriers) has a provision for identifying the party to whom the carrier should send its freight bills. The "official" version of the bill of lading as published in the National Motor Freight Classification has a box that states: "Freight charges are PREPAID unless marked collect" and a place to "CHECK BOX IF COLLECT". Many bills of lading also have a "Bill To" box if the freight bills are to be sent to someone other than the shipper or the consignee, such as a freight payment agent. It is a common misconception that the identification of the party to pay the freight charges, i.e., whether the freight charges are "prepaid" or "collect", also determines which party should file a claim for loss or damage. The first step in any claim case is to ascertain who has risk of loss in transit. This concept is significant because it determines who has the legal right or obligation to file the claim, and who is the proper “party in interest” in the event of litigation. Under common law and the old Uniform Sales Act, which has been replaced by the Uniform Commercial Code, risk of loss generally followed “title” to the goods. However, under the Uniform Commercial Code, risk of loss is related to “delivery” of the goods.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Implications of the Doctrine of Impossibility, 26 Hastings L.J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 26 | Issue 5 Article 5 1-1975 The conomicE Implications of the Doctrine of Impossibility Stephen S. Ashley Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen S. Ashley, The Economic Implications of the Doctrine of Impossibility, 26 Hastings L.J. 1251 (1975). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol26/iss5/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF IMPOSSIBILITY If one accepts as a norm Cardozo's maxim that "[t]he final cause of law is the welfare of society,"' economic theory may provide a useful basis for evaluating the social consequences of legal doctrines. This note will demonstrate the usefulness of applying an economic analysis to the doctrine of impossibility of contract performance, the legal prin- ciple applied to contract disputes which arise when an unforeseen catas- trophe prevents performance of a contract whose terms do not allocate the risk of that catastrophe. The traditional legal analysis, by limiting its view to the allocation of losses which have already occurred and by ignoring the problem of assigning the risk of future losses, has pro- duced inconsistent and arbitrary risk assignments, to society's detri- ment. The proposals of other legal writers would have the same effect. This note will demonstrate through an economic analysis that the law should allocate the risk of disruption unequivocally to the party better able to insure against the risk, subject to reassignment by the parties in their contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Acceptance and Receipt: an Anomaly in the Statute of Frauds Minn
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1953 Acceptance and Receipt: An Anomaly in the Statute of Frauds Minn. L. Rev. Editorial Board Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Editorial Board, Minn. L. Rev., "Acceptance and Receipt: An Anomaly in the Statute of Frauds" (1953). Minnesota Law Review. 2712. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/2712 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ACCEPTANCE AND RECEIPT: AN ANOMALY IN THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS The enactment of the English Statute of Frauds' in 1677 has been attributed to the ineffectual trial procedure of that period.2 Both the practice of awarding new trials and the development of the rules of evidence were in a formative stage.3 At that time juries could reject the evidence heard and reach a verdict on their own privately secured information,4 and the parties to the action, who were not familiar with the facts, could not testify.5 Fraud and perjury were to be prevented primarily by removing from juries any determination of liability in certain cases unless the statutory formalities were met.6 Furthermore, the turbulent times following the Civil War, the Commonwealth, and the Restoration probably encouraged claims without any foundation. 7 The present day statutes of frauds which relate to the sale of goods are derived from Section seventeen of the English Statute of Frauds.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Southern Division
    Case 2:11-cv-01183-AKK Document 54 Filed 03/28/13 Page 1 of 36 FILED 2013 Mar-28 PM 04:05 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff / Counter Defendant, ) ) Civil Action Number vs. ) 2:11-cv-1183-AKK ) GUSTER LAW FIRM, LLC, et ) al., ) ) Defendants / Counter Claimants ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER A fire destroyed commercial property insured by Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Nationwide’s investigation of the ensuing claim revealed discrepancies in the details outlined in the insurance applications, including, among other things, the age of the property, the identity of the true owner, and its occupancy and habitability status. Nationwide subsequently filed this action against its insured, Guster Law Firm, LLC, alleging that Guster Law had no insurable interest in the property and that its applications contained material misrepresentations or were fraudulent. Nationwide seeks a declaratory judgment as to the rights and liabilities of the parties under both the commercial property Page 1 of 36 Case 2:11-cv-01183-AKK Document 54 Filed 03/28/13 Page 2 of 36 and general liability policies.1 Doc. 1. Guster Law and Guster Properties, LLC, the true owner of the insured property, filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay the insurance claims, and reformation of the named insured in the insurance policies due to mutual mistake. Doc. 15. Nationwide moved for summary judgment contending that it is not liable for the loss, doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Capacity to Bear Loss As a Factor in the Decision of Certain Types of Tort Cases L
    April, i93i CAPACITY TO BEAR LOSS AS A FACTOR IN THE DECISION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF TORT CASES L. W. FEEZER In a previous issue of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review the writer discussed under the present title a number of tort cases involving municipal corporations.' The purpose was to point out what seemed to be a noticeable tendency in recent cases to depart from the rule that a municipal corporation is not liable for torts arising in connection with a municipal function. It was suggested that this tendency may be due in part to a desire to place the burden of loss through injury where it can be borne with the least hardship. It was noted that this is attained by placing it where it can be absorbed with a lesser probability of creating further problems of social adjustment. When the bur- den in such cases is put upon the defendant, that defendant can distribute the loss burden over a considerable group, viz., the body of tax-payers. In this way the loss is ultimately born by the social organization for whose benefit the risk producing agency was brought into existence. The industrialization and mechanization of social organiza- tion has brought into existence for the benefit of society great organizations whose activities involve dangers of injury which were not present in the simpler and more rural organization of earlier times. This is not to say that life is less secure now than when "Adam delved and Eve span", but security of life is menaced by risks traceable to the "conveniences" which have come to be regarded as necessities in modern life and which are provided through great business organizations.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Impossibility and Related Excuses
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1988 Impossibility and Related Excuses Victor P. Goldberg Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Contracts Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation Victor P. Goldberg, Impossibility and Related Excuses, 144 JITE 100 (1988). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2246 This Essay 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]. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) 144 (1988), 100-116 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft Impossibility and Related Excuses by Victor P. Goldberg * 0. Introduction If conditions change after parties enter into a contract, one of them might want to be excused from performance, or at least have its obligations revised. Anglo- American law provides the disadvantaged party with a number of defenses which would extinguish that party's obligations - impossibility, frustration, impracticability, and mutual mistake. Although there are some technical dis- tinctions between these, for analytical convenience I will hereafter lump them all together under the impossibility rubric. My purpose in this essay is to explore some problems that have arisen in determining the appropriate scope of the impossibility defense. The importance of the impossibility defense is circumscribed by the ability of the parties to contract around the law. If the law were too liberal in excusing performance, the parties could narrow the range of acceptable excuses by explicit contractual language.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonreciprocal Risk Imposition, Unjust Enrichment, and the Foundations of Tort Law: a Critical Celebration of George Fletcher's Theory of Tort Law Heidi M
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 78 Article 2 Issue 3 Propter Honoris Respectum 4-1-2003 Nonreciprocal Risk Imposition, Unjust Enrichment, and the Foundations of Tort Law: A Critical Celebration of George Fletcher's Theory of Tort Law Heidi M. Hurd Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Heidi M. Hurd, Nonreciprocal Risk Imposition, Unjust Enrichment, and the Foundations of Tort Law: A Critical Celebration of George Fletcher's Theory of Tort Law, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 711 (2003). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol78/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NONRECIPROCAL RISK IMPOSITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF TORT LAW: A CRITICAL CELEBRATION OF GEORGE FLETCHER'S THEORY OF TORT LAW Heidi M. Hurd* Whenever I am asked to cite my favorite piece of legal scholar- ship, I say without hesitation that it is George Fletcher's classic contri- bution to the jurisprudence of torts, Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory.1 This is my favorite article because, like its author, it has tremendous panache. It is bold, and even brazen in its advancement of a descrip- tive thesis that cuts across the standard categories of tort doctrine; it is haunting in its articulation of deep-seated moral intuitions that de- mand a powerful new moral agenda for the tort system; and it is play- ful and irreverent in its use of traditional doctrinal and theoretical dogmas.
    [Show full text]
  • Unconscionability: the Approach of the Louisiana Civil Code Ronald L
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 43 | Number 6 July 1983 Unconscionability: The Approach of the Louisiana Civil Code Ronald L. Hersbergen Repository Citation Ronald L. Hersbergen, Unconscionability: The Approach of the Louisiana Civil Code, 43 La. L. Rev. (1983) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol43/iss6/1 This Front Matter 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]. UNCONSCIONABILITY: THE APPROACH OF THE LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE Ronald L. Hersbergen* INTRODUCTION In 1975 Louisiana became the fiftieth state to enact the Uniform Commercial Code, but unlike its sister states, Louisiana omitted several UCC articles. As of 1983, UCC articles 2, 6, and 9 remain unadopted in Louisiana, and only article 6 remains under serious con- sideration for adoption by the Louisiana State Law Institute. For the present, articles 2 and 9 appear to be dead-letters in Louisiana, the apparent reason for inaction being a perception that the two articles are incompatible with Louisiana's underlying Civil Code principles.' By not enacting article 2 of the UCC, Louisiana remains, with Califor- nia, a jurisdiction without section 2-3022- not the most important sec- tion in the UCC, perhaps, but by far the most interesting one. The UCC section 2-302 comment advises that the section is, in essence, a grant of power to the courts to "police" contracts within the UCC's ambit and, in the court's discretion, to refuse to enforce Copyright 1983, by LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW.
    [Show full text]
  • The Enforceability of Contractual Clauses Excluding Sellers from Liability for Consequential Damages Under Section 2-719 of the Uniform Commercial Code
    Washington University Law Review Volume 58 Issue 2 January 1980 The Enforceability of Contractual Clauses Excluding Sellers from Liability for Consequential Damages Under Section 2-719 of the Uniform Commercial Code Lee Borgatta Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Commercial Law Commons Recommended Citation Lee Borgatta, The Enforceability of Contractual Clauses Excluding Sellers from Liability for Consequential Damages Under Section 2-719 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 58 WASH. U. L. Q. 317 (1980). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol58/iss2/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES THE ENFORCEABILITY OF CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES EXCLUDING SELLERS FROM LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES UNDER SECTION 2-719 OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE I. INTRODUCTION A primary purpose and policy underlying the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is "to make uniform the law among the various jurisdic- tions."' In interpreting and applying section 2-719,2 however, the courts have reached inconsistent results on the enforceability of con- tractual provisions purporting to hold sellers harmless from liability for consequential damages for commercial losses3 when the buyer's exclu- sive and limited contractual remedy for the seller's breach of warranty 4 "fails of its essential purpose." 1. U.C.C. § 1-102(2)(c). All states, except Louisiana, have adopted article 2 of the UCC.
    [Show full text]
  • Unjust Impoverishment: Using Restitution Reasoning in Today's
    Unjust Impoverishment: Using Restitution Reasoning in Today’s Mortgage Crisis Peter Linzer∗ Donna L. Huffman∗∗ Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................. 949 II. The Scope of Restitution .............................................................. 950 III. Traditional Restitution and Impoverishment ................................ 955 A. The Unpaid Contractor Cases................................................ 955 B. The Public Costs of Legal Private Business: Of Cigarettes and Lead .......................................................... 961 IV. Unjust Impoverishment Through Wrongful Foreclosure ............. 963 V. In Conclusion ............................................................................... 967 Appendix A [to Linzer and Huffman, Unjust Impoverishment] ........... 968 I. Introduction We are here today to celebrate, and criticize, the Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment (R3RUE), the product of more than ten years’ work by its great reporter, Andrew Kull, assisted by a gilt-edged group of advisors and a serious and hard-working Members’ Consultative Group. The product of this work is more than just a worthy successor to the 1937 Restatement of Restitution, which created and has shaped the subject for nearly seventy-five years. Besides Professor Kull’s careful delineation of the specifics of modern restitution law, his drafts continue to give us an opportunity to consider the scope and rationale for restitution. We wish to
    [Show full text]