Contract Law Outline
•
Section 2, Fall 1995
Professor Hamilton
•
“Contracts, Cases & Materials”
Hamilton, Rau, Weintraub - Second Edition

A.	Types of Remedies
1.	Expectancy
A.	Enforcement of Expectancy:
1.	Purpose
General:  to put the victim of a breach upon a contract back into as good a position as if the contract had been performed while seeking not to pile up damages upon the breaching party.
U.C.C. ¤1-106(1):  Liberally administer remedies to put aggrieved party in as good a position as if contract had been performed, but no consequential, special or penal damages imposed except as specifically provided for.   
2.	Damages:  Value Difference + Incidental and Consequential Damages.(Hawkins v. McGee)
A.	Difference in value: difference in value between what got and what was received
1.	Bad Operation:  (amount can earn per year with hand the way it was promised to be - amount as is)* working life expectancy, all discounted to present value.
B.	Cost of Performance:
1.	Bad Operation:  cost to get a new operation (with some assuredness of success) plus additional pain and suffering to go through the second operation.
2.	Performance:  estimated cost to complete unfinished or botched job.
C.	Lost Profit: the profit that you expected to receive from the contract, which is usually the contract price - cost estimated to compete - costs saved as result of the breach.   (Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge)
1.	Profit + Costs to Date (favorable to the breached, though have difficulty in proving expected profits), or 
2.	Contract Price - Estimated Cost to Complete - Savings Due to Breach (favorable to breaching party for reason that costs rise), or
3.	(Contract price per widget - Cost to produce widget) *Number of Widgets remaining
3.	Consequential Damages:  
A.	Two Branch Test:  One is liable for:  (1) those damages as may reasonably be considered to arise naturally as consequence of the breach, and (2) those such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the two parties at the time of forming the contract.  The first being a subcategory of the second.  (Hadley v. Baxendale)
	(1) Is extremely limiting, and undercompensates in many cases.  What is the natural consequence of the loss of a shaft, shaft rental rate, but the plant was shut down for one month while making a new one.
	(2)  Also limiting in that it excludes all damages not reasonably forethought.  But what about special risks, such as the cab driver paid extra to get the business man to the airport not to miss the million dollar deal who gets caught in traffic?
	What these mean is ultimately a matter of law for the court to decide.  The exception thus being when the party was informed of some special consequences, and seems to take them into account when making the contract.
B.	Tacit Agreement Test:  Where no express contract to pay special damages exist, the facts and circumstances in proof must be such as to make it reasonable to believe that the party at the time of contract, tacitly consented to be bound to more than ordinary damages in case of default on his part. (Morrow v. First National Bank of Hot Springs)
	This test is almost never used as it is too restrictive, Hadley test better.  UCC specifically rejected this test.
C.	Common Carriers:  A common carrier is bound to take all customers and to treat them equally, thus precluding it from entering into any special agreements as per the Hadley free will test to accept or deny special conditions.  This is how they set their rates, and thus only nominal damages can be awarded, whether there is knowledge or not of the consequences.
	However, modern courts have held that common carriers are liable where the consequence are foreseen.  Respondeat Superior allows company to be held for actions of underlings.
4.	Punitive Damages:  Though not frequent in contract law, where there is an abuse of a relationships involving special confidence, usually between two of unequal bargaining power, punitive damages may sometimes be awarded.  Such damages are normally reserved for tort claims dealing with unconscionable conduct, or gross negligence, in commerce there is the philosophy that so long as the damage is purely economic you must be hard nosed about it.
A.	Insurance Companies:  punitive damages may be awarded where an insurance company is guilty of fraud, malice, or oppression. 
B.	Independent Duty:  there is generally no claim for punitive damages in tort law, but they do not bar action from any independent claim in tort though based upon the same set of facts.
B.	Limitations on expectency:
1.	Waste:  When the cost of performance measure is used and it is greatly in excess of the diminution value that would result if not performed, then the diminution value is the proper measure, unless:  (Peeveyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining)
A.	Centrality:  the wasteful portion to be performed was the central reason for entering the contract, or the consideration of the contract.
B.	Purpose:  the contracting to build ugly statute case, where the purpose of the contract is to decrease the value of the property or its a direct and foreseeable consequence.
C.	Construction:  in building and construction contracts the cost of performance is often required and enforced.
	Note that this method if you apply the Hawkins test, both diminution value and performance cost theoretically put you into the same position as if performed.
2.	Mitigation of Damages:  victim of a breach is not allowed to pile up damages through subsequent conduct followed the breach.
A.	Construction:  where the buyer of construction services repudiates, the contractor must cease all further work as not to pile up damages.
B.	Employment:  Where and employer breaches on an employment contract, breached party I s expected to use time to mitigate damages, as if still working:
1)	Job Search:  must make a reasonable effort to look for work
2)	Accept Offers:  must accept all offers, if and only if of the same character and in the same locale.  If pay is lower may have to take it any way and sue for the difference.
3)	Return:  once contract is breached, there is no obligation to take the old job back as recompense, due to fears of bad faith, poor relations, etc. (Golob v. George May’s, where contract was not performed right the first time for cattle feeding study, need not take offer to redo)  Based upon concept of Anticipatory Repudiation, UCC ¤2-610, choice to wait for party to and urge perform or resort to remedy.
4)	Mitigation:  any job taken during the same hours mitigates, whether of the same character or not, and if the wage exceeds that of the job lost there will be no damages. (See page 7 of notes)
	Note:  favors higher social statute employment which is harder to cover, harder to find similar employment (Parker v. 20th Century Fox)
C.	Contractors:  the exception to the Hussey rule for is that of the contractor, who can manage many jobs at one time, who spends his time making contracts not performing them.
	New Contracts: Any new contracts do not mitigate for those breached, unless they are the same contract, started over.  This is true even if some or much of the work is derived from the breached contract (Olds v. Mapes-Reeves Construction), as each contract is a new undertaking with new concerns and risks.
3.	Speculation:  for damages to be awarded they must not be too speculative.  In the cases of a new business which is delayed by breach, the provability of damages might be dependent on business experience of owner, or if time has already past, it could be based upon the actual profits made after delay.  (Ferrel v. Elrod)
2.	Reliance:
A.	Purpose:  to put the victim of the breach back in a position as close as possible to that prior to formation of the contract.  This form of recovery exists as a subset of expectancy.  The damages received are the expenses incurred in reliance on the existence of the contract.
B.	Essential Reliance: a party may regain any costs incurred for activities done in the performance of a contract.  This includes all things which are your part of the consideration traded in the contract.  To prove essential reliance must be able to prove expenditures made within the performance, such as buying of materials in a building contract.
1.	Reliance as Basis for Enforcement: Where the promise of another induces another to incur expenses or forbearance, essential to its performance, and the expenses are reasonably foreseeable, the promise may be enforced.  The restatements call it an inconsiderate promise made enforceable by reliance.  The courts say that the forbearance is the consideration or that the other side is estopped from changing it position for lack of consideration once forbearance has taken place. 
2.	Individuals vs Commercial Entities: A gift given knowing or foreseeing the reasonable or probable consequential expenses to be incurred is presumed to be enforceable between individuals, but not between commercial entities.  Where there is greater intimacy, the consequences are more foreseeable.
3.	Tort Reliance:  Where one is induced by another, individual or commercial entity, by a promise to fail to exercise the care that he would normally do, and this failure increases the risk of harm, the defendant is liable for the harm that results.  (Colonial Savings, 1976, where a homeowner relied on a bank’s promise that it had provided fire insurance, which it had not done, the bank is liable for the damage which resulted)
C.	Incidental Reliance:
1.	Speculative Damages:  where the consequential damages of a breach do not meet the branches of the Hadley test, one may seek.
	Cost incurred going to a trade show which go to waste when the package with your product doesn’t arrive.  You have incurred these costs in reliance upon the delivery, though there are undoubtedly lost profits they would be too speculative. (Security Stove v. American Railway Express)
	Profits from a prize fight, as for how may tickets one would sell, etc., are too speculative and do not pass the Hadley test, thus coliseum must seek damages in reliance.  (Chicago Coliseum Club v. Dempsey)
2.	Reasonable Contemplation or Foreseeability:  the amount of damages for which the breaching party is liable is for all expenses which pass the Hadly reliance test of reasonably contemplation, or the UCC reasonably foreseeability tests..
	Usually do not, but may include money expended prior to formation of the contract, but where they were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties, or were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the contracting, then they will be awarded. (Anglia Television v. Robert Reed)
C.	Nature of Theory:
1.	Exclusivity:  Reliance recovery does not exclude also seeking restitution damages, if the accounting is done correctly there is no overlap.  Where restitution under compensates, as in plastic surgery that fails to improve looks, but expectancy overcompensates, may get a combination of restitution (the fee paid), plus some reliance (medicine bought, and other costs incurred, including any detriment such as pain as suffering wasted).  (Sullivan v O’Connor)
2.	Choice:  In general it is not the choice of the Plaintiff whether to pursue this type of damage award, but may be pleaded in alternate for expectancy. The court often decides which is appropriate.  As if one fails to do so, and the expectancy damages are too speculative may only be allowed nominal damages by restitution.  (Freund v. Washington Square Press, could have received cost in time for writing book not published in reliance).
2.	Restitution:
A.	Purpose:  Where one party has been unjustly enriched through the actions of another, one may seek damages to compensate.  The basis of this method is without regard to the contract’s existence.  This is the fuzziest of the damage formulas.
1.	Benefits Conferred:
A.	Fees:  may recover fees paid at least for a breached contract, such as insurance premium when coverage was severed. (Bollenback v. Continental Casualty)
B.	Contract Price:  the contract price for the service or goods is evidence of its reasonable value but not conclusive, as restitution is done without regard to the contract, on might get more than one contracted for by suing in restitution.
C.	Success:  Benefit conferred is not dependent upon success of outcome, as where a doctor performs and operation that goes bad, (Cotnam v. Wisdom), or merger broker where party does not accept the merger ().
D.	Mistake:  A mistake made by one or both parties does not affect the fact of a benefit being conferred, however, any contract with them may limit or set the value conferred.  (Michigan Central Railroad v. State)
E.	Immunity:  The state is immune to civil suit damages, but waives the right of immunity in restitution, thus giving a remedy to its contractors and encouraging business with the government.
F.	Theoretical Benefit:  One who requests something specifically as a condition for doing something which he breaches, this request demonstrates a theoretical benefit to the requester.
	A person promising to lease if landlord makes repairs, and reneges under statute of frauds, he still got the benefit of those improvements even though he never used them.  (Farash v. Sykes).
2.	Protection:  
A.	Breachors:  Restitution is generally not for the breaching party, but for the victim of a breach.  Thus once you put in time working for someone and breach, you may not be able to get the value of your services back, may hinge on whether there were any progress payments made.
B.	Implied Contracts:  Court creates what is not a contract in fact but a legal fiction for the sake of remedy, a quasi-contract, to reward socially responsible behavior.  It is generally reserved for those with special skills, in such times as they make use of those special skills.
1.	Necessity:  in cases where necessity is such that one is unable to secure consent, and one performs some special skill necessary for the circumstance (professionally recognized as special), one may collect by restitution the reasonable fees by an contract implied at law for such services (Cotnam v. Wisdom).
2.	Implied Consent:  The situation must be such that consent could reasonably be implied.  Thus barring the officious intermeddler from painting you house without permission and sending you the bill.  However, had you come home and seen him and let him continue, then it may be inferred that you consented.
	Difficult situation is where there is a middle man involved, such as a land owner whose tenant is effecting improvements but goes bankrupt.  Those contracted to effect the repairs by the tenant may not be able to collect against land owner, as he had already paid for the improvements in letting the tenant live there (Schneider v. Delwood Center).  Goes to a judgment call under category 4.
3.	Limits:  The services rendered must be limited to those which are reasonable.  Thus if you drop off a suit into the dry cleaner - tailors place, he can only charge you for cleaning and not alterations, embellishments, etc.  At that point he too becomes an officious intermeddler.
C.	Categories:  The general categories of things covered by restitution by implied contracts:
1.	Socially Beneficial Behavior:  where public policy wants to encourage the behavior which enriched another, such as those out of necessity (Cotnam v. Widsom)
2.	Implied Consent:  Where a willingness to pay can reasonably be inferred from the circumstances.
3.	Exercise Dominion:  Where someone exercised dominion over an article that is known not to be that someone’s property.  Such as getting a tie in the mail, finding someone else has deposited money in you account, etc..
4.	Fairness:  Where it seems reasonable and fair under the circumstances, which are dependent upon policy, value conferred or given up, expectation of receipt in return.
B.	Rescission: Where one party has repudiated a contract by failure to perform to such extent that it fails in its purpose, the other may rescind the contract, thus denying its existence, and proceed for damages in restitution.  This is an action at law and not equity, and it purposes to put the party in as good a position as if the contract had never existed, status quo ante.
3.	Specific Performance:
A.	Types of Contracts Specifically Enforced:
1.	Land Transfers:  Land is the historically been considered unique, even though lots may be indifferentiable, and substitution for other pieces of land or money was not acceptable.  Note in specific performance of transfer of land court can enforce it by contempt order, but for repayment of land conveyed there is no contempt power; need resort to other method.
2.	Unique Items:  Where the items contracted for are unique, such as in antiques, or specifically manufactured goods.  Uniqueness must be to the subject matter of the contract, even rare things have value, you need uniqueness. (VanWagner Advertising v. S&M Entrp.)
3.	Employment:  Contracts for employment where there is danger of anticompetitive or tortious exchange of privy information may be specifically enforced.  There is a hesitancy to do so, due to difficulty to enforce, and 13th amendment against involuntary servitude.
4.	AntiCompetitive Covenants:  Where reasonable terms concerning not competing with employer cold result in damage to that employer if allowed to breach and go over to the competition.  The terms for noncompetition can be express or implied, and can be enforced only for existing employment agreements.  Only enforced after end of employment if there is an express agreement for a reasonable amount of time not to compete, AND there is a threat of exchange of trade secrets.
B.	Tests:  The test to be applied in deciding whether or not to enforce performance are whether:
1.	Coverability:  Can services or goods be found elsewhere.
2.	Overseeability:  How difficult would it be for the court to oversee.  Where special abilities are involved or the like, the court could not judge performance no matter how hard it tried.  For land the court appoints a trustee and gives him title to oversee the transfer, others must be enforce by contempt orders and hiring experts.
3.	Ascertainability of Damages:  The difficulty in ascertaining speculative or impossible to determine damages may require performance for reasons of justice.
4.	Culpability:  Breach or emergency requiring specific performance is in any way the fault of the breached party.  Even if there is an emergency for which the plaintiff is not responsible, this is in general not the type of situation meant to cure, the court is a slow machine.
5.	Public Policy:  The public policy of enforcing or not, must be considered.
5.	Agreed Remedies:
A.	General:  In general attempts by the parties themselves to specify what the damages should be, will be upheld when they represent a real attempt at a reasonable estimate of the damages likely from a breach.  If the damages are speculative or unascertainable, or where that of risk shifting the court is extremely hesitant to void such a clause unless their is an inequity of bargaining power.
1.	Mitigation:  A damage clause that does not allow for mitigation based upon partial performance of a contract or resale of goods, is penal and not enforceable.  (Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co.)  Such a non-mitigation clause is appropriate where all expenses are incurred at the beginning of the contract.
2.	Timing:  The damages clause must be a reasonable attempt to specify what the damages would be due to a breach, as reasonably conceived of by the parties at the time of making the contract.
3.	Actual Damages:  The actual damages that do result are not evidence of the penalty of the clause.  Often clauses are drawn up based upon risk, and the fact that the worst did not occur does not make the actual damages penal. (C&H Sugar v. Sun Ship)  The actual damages may be taken into account, however, where they were easily ascertainable afterward and too high.
B.	U.C.C.:  
1.	Liquidation or Limitation of Damages & Deposits, ¤2-718
(1)	Damages in clause must be reasonable in light of anticipated or actual harm, the difficulty in proving loss, and feasibility of other remedies.  Others are void.
(2)	Where deposits are concerned, and buyer breaches he may sue in restitution for the deposit in the amount that it exceeds,
(a) terms of any clause in contract
(b)	in absence of a clause, 20% of total performance for which buyer obligated or $500, whichever is smaller.
(3)	the right to restitution is offset by any remedy had by seller or any amount owed seller
(4)	anything payments received by seller are considered deposits for (2)
2.	Contractual Modification and Limitation of Remedy, ¤2-719
(1)	Acceptable Limits:  Subject to ¤2-718 contracts may:
(A)	substitute, limit or alter any remedies provided in UCC, such as buyers remedy limit to return of goods, repayment of price, repair, replacement, etc., but
(B)	resort to other remedy is allowed, unless agreed remedy is expressly exclusive.
(2)	Essential Purpose: Where a damage clause fails in its essential purpose it becomes void, and thus no longer limits recovery by any method available.  (Durfee v. Roc Baxter Imports, clause limiting damages to spare parts and repair costs invalid where after several repairs the car still substantially impaired in use).
3.	Unconscionable Clauses or Contracts, ¤2-302:  
 (1)	If the court finds any contract or clause to have been unconscionable at the time it was made, it may refuse to force it, or ignore any portion to avoid the result.
(2)	The parties will be allowed to present evidence as to the setting under which the clause or contract was made to justify it.
	The basic test is how one sided any clause my be within the context of the needs and conditions of the commercial setting.  In the past this was done by the court by determination that the clause failed in its purpose or that it was against public policy.
C.	Policy:
1.	Types Enforceable:  Arbitration clauses, waiving a trial by jury (due to courts favor of not having jury trials), specifying a reasonable jurisdiction for litigation provided the venue is proper, agreements for loser to pay litigation costs.  Not enforceable are those that meddle with the court system, such as specifying a judge to adjudicate, or other things that it is for the system and not the parties to decide.
2.	Argument Pro Enforcement of Agreed Remedies:  
A.	Price of contract has taken into account the reduced risks from the penalty clause, and invalidating it puts the party in greater risk of financial loss.
B.	What appears to be penal to the court may be the result of the parties different perceptions of the risk.
C.	Expectancy damages are often undercompensatory, stipulated damages allow the parties to divide the gains of an efficient breach as they wish.
D.	It is paternalism to do so, and with sophisticated entities there should be not need for such protection.  Corporations hire people to contemplate the risks and consequences, and the success or failure in this is part of the basis of business.
3.	Argument Con Enforcement of Agreed Remedies:  
A.	Abuse of bargaining power would develop and it may frequently end up giving incentives to one side to cause a breach by the other.
B.	When contract involves individuals, they often do no foresee breaches, as they generally plan to perform and proceed with optimism.  Her paternalism is necessary.
C.	Discourages efficient breaches.
6.	Uniform Commercial Code
A.	Seller’s Remedies:
1.	Options:  
	Rightful Rejection:  ¤2-612 (2), Installment Contract
	If doesn’t substantially affect whole, but does substantially effect the installment, may make adequate assurance of cure, and buyer must accept.
	Wrongful Rejection:  ¤2-703, Seller’s Remedies in general.
	If buyer wrongfully rejects, revokes acceptance, or doesn’t pay, may with respect to part or whole (¤2-612, (1) each delivery is a separate contract, (3) but if part substantially effects the whole then breach is to the whole):
A.	Unfinished Goods: ¤2-704(2)(c), may make a commercial judgment whether to scrap for complete and unfinished goods, and recover under another section.
B.	Resale: ¤2-706(1), may resell the goods in a commercially reasonable manner, and recover:  Contract - Resale + Incidental (¤2-710) - Save as result of breach.  Where Incidentals are stop delivery, transportation, care and custody, return or resale charges.
C.	Damages: ¤2-708, may recover damages for breach by market price at TENDER in the amount of:  Contract (remaining) - Market + Incidental - Saved as result of breach.
D.	Specific Performance:  ¤2-709 Action for the Price may be made where the price is the market price after a commercially reasonable time to sell or recover (1)(b) but is generally limited to situations of making reasonable effort to sell at reasonable price, or destroyed while in buyers possession.
2.	Resale ¤2-706(1):  Contract - Resale + Incidental - Saved
3.	Damages ¤2-708(1): Contract (remaining) - Market + Incidental - Saved
4.	Damages ¤2-708(2):  Where (1) is inadequate or overadequate in compensation, use this formula:  Profit + Incidental  (in the event of scrap, the scrap sale mitigates)
A.	Lost Volume Sellers:  Following resale after a breech by buyer, to collect under this subsection must prove that breached party is a lost volume seller by both proving that (A) have capacity for additional production and that (B) it would have been economically viable to do so.  If not then collect under ¤2-706(1). (Davis Chemical v. Diasonics)
B.	Volume Discount:  Recovery under this section does not  include any volume discount lost incident to the breach, as is not the contemplation of ¤2-710. (Nobs Chemical v. Koppers)
C.	Unprocured Goods:  Where due to market fluctuations, the market price has dropped, such that the formula in (1) overcompensates (Contract - Market and market has dropped), then must use this section.  (Nobs Chemical v. Koppers, contract at higher price signed)  Though if the fall in price would have been realized had the contract been complete may still use subsection (1).  (Trans World Metals v. Southwire)
5	Action for the Price ¤2-709:  Where the buyer fails to pay, he may be required to pay for any goods accepted, lost or damaged once in his custody, or for any other identified goods that cannot be sold after reasonable effort to do so by the seller.
B.	Buyer’s Remedies:
1.	Warranties: 
A.	Express Warranties ¤2-313:  Any (1) affirmation of fact, (2) description, or (3) Sample or model, which becomes part of the basis of a bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to it.  Seller need not intend to create such nor utter words “warrant” or guarantee, to create such, and clauses disclaiming such warranties will not reduce the obligation.
	In order to recover for breach of an express warrantee, Plaintiff must show that he relied upon the warranty when making purchase.  Then may get any damages that result as a consequence of the breach of warranty, without needing to show any other viable alternative that could have prevented the consequence. (Overstreet v. Norden Labs)
B.	Implied Warranty ¤2-314:  (1) Where seller is a merchant of such goods a contract for their sale implies a warranty for their merchantability.  (2) Meaning that they are fit for ordinary use by  ¤2-315, packaged as required, conform to their label, and pass without objection in the trade, and (3) others may arise.
C.	Exceptions ¤2-316:  To make an exception to an implied warranty of fitness, a sufficient writing is required with such words “as is” etc., unless other circumstances demonstrate such understanding.
2.	Non-Conforming Goods Received:
A.	Rejection of Goods, ¤2-601:  Perfect Tender Rule 
	Prior to acceptance the buyer may reject or accept goods, in whole or in part, for ANY non conformity.  Following failure by seller to effect cure after a reasonable time, ¤2-508, buyer may cancel and seek remedy, ¤2-711. (Ramirez v. Autosport)
B.	Revocation of Acceptance, ¤2-608:
 (1)	Buyer may revoke acceptance for substantial non-conformity if accepted:
(A)	on reasonable assumption that non-conformity would be cured, or
(B)	without discovery if induced by difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by seller’s assurances.
	Thus where the seller assures that car will be repaired, you may accept, but only a substantial non-conformity will allow revocation, cancellation and further remedy, such as a problem affecting driveability.  (Durfee v. Roc Baxter Imports).
(2)	Revocation must occur within a reasonable time.  Where non-conformance occurs after resale, buyer may get windfall.
C.	Cure by Seller, ¤2-508:
(1)	Upon rejection seller may notify buyer of his intention to cure, if completed within time for performance, this right is absolute.
(2)	Otherwise, where seller had reason to believe that goods were acceptable, may notify the buyer and get a further reasonable time to substitute conforming tender.
D.	Installment Contracts, ¤2-612:  
(2)	On first installment may reject by perfect tender rule, ¤2-601, but for subsequent deliveries may only reject for substantial non-conformities, and only if cannot be cured, ¤2-508.
(3)	If breach of part is substantial w/re to the whole, the breach is to the whole.  However, failure to notify of cancellation in a timely manner or suit for past installments after accepting new ones reinstates the contract.
4.	Remedies for Breach:  ¤2-703, Buyer’s Remedies in general.
	If buyer wrongfully fails to deliver, repudiates, or when rightfully reject goods (¤2-612 (2)), buyer may cancel and recover IN ADDITION to payments already made:
A.	Cover: ¤2-712, may cover through purchase without unreasonable delay (1), and then may recover:  Cover - Contract + Incidental and Consequential (¤2-715)
1.	Self Cover ¤2-712:  Buyer may cover by buying from self if he is “on the market,” under the requirement of timeliness by ¤1-204, and may during such time urge performance as per ¤2-610.  (Dura-wood Treating v. Century Forest).
	However, decision to self-cover denies any recover of the potential profits from resale, as now realize those in profit made on the manufacture.  So this consequential damage is lost.
2.	Partial Cover:  covering part of a quantity due in a contract, does not bar other remedy for that balance quantity due.
B.	Breach After Acceptance ¤2-714:  Damages for Accepted Goods.
(1)	Buyer may recover for any damages resulting in the normal course of evens from non-conformity of tender accepted.
(2)	Usual method is Value Warranted - Value Received, (Chaltos Systems v. National Cash Register), and 
(3)	When proper may recover incidental and consequential damages as well
C.	Damages: ¤2-713, may recover damages for breach by market price at time that learns of breach by the formula:  Market - Contract + Incidental and Consequential - Saved as result of breach.
	The meaning of “time learns of breach” is that after the passage of a reasonable amount of time to determine whether or not to cover or seek other remedy, as per anticipatory repudiation, ¤2-610.  (Cargill v. Stafford)  But raises question as to whether repudiating party could withdraw repudiation, at this point judged by the circumstances.
D.	Specific Performance, ¤2-716, may seek specific performance where (1) goods are unique or otherwise appropriate (2) for payment of the price, damages, etc.., and where (3) has been unable to effect substitute goods may get replevin.
	Output Contracts, ¤2-306:  where the measuring term is the output needs of the buyer, and there is an exclusive dealings contract, specific performance is frequently given.  Where the buyer is the exclusive buyer of the output of a seller; the converse is not true of the seller, though this be overcome by construing ¤1-102 and ¤1-103.
E.	Incidental & Consequential Damages ¤2-715:
(1)	Incidental Damages ¤2-715(1):  inspection, receipt, transportation, care and custody, and commercially reasonable cover costs.
(2)	Consequential Damages ¤2-715(2):  losses which (1) seller had reason to know at contracting time and which could not reasonably be avoided, and (2) any injury to person or property as result of breach.
C.	Promissory Notes:
1.	Definition, ¤3-104:  a promissory note is an unconditional promise to pay a fixed sum (though it may include interest) to the bearer on demand (or at a specified time) without any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising.
2.	Holder in Due Course, ¤3-302:  A holder in due course is the holder of an instrument that was paid for with value in good faith that it was valid and without any notice of any possible insecurity.
3.	Defenses to All Holders, ¤3-305:  the right to enforce a note against the promisor is subject to several defenses:
A.	Infancy:  Infancy in that it may make the note voidable though not void
B.	Duress:  Duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction making it void under law.
C.	Trickery:  Fraud that results in the promisor signing what he did not know was a note, or one that he did not know the conditions to and was not allowed to by trickery.  This differs from fraud that induces one to knowingly sign, which is not a defense here.
D.	Bankruptcy:  Discharge of debt through insolvency proceedings.
4.	Defenses to Original Holder, ¤3-305:  the same defenses are available here as there are to any simple contract.  Some of the most common are:
A.	consideration:  The original instrument was issued, but the promise was never delivered, making the promise inconsiderate.
B.	Fraud:  The terms under which the instrument was signed were fraudulent, misrepresentative, etc..  Differs from above fraud, this one is not a defense to a holder in due course. 
C.	Mistake:  The issue was made by mistake, clerical or otherwise.
B.	Enforceability
1.	Statute of Frauds:
	Oral agreements are generally enforceable, except for the class which fall within the statute of frauds and thus require a writing to be enforceable.  Even amongst this class, however, the requirement of writing may be dispensed with under either statutory or judicially created exceptions, thus taking them out of the statute of frauds and making them enforceable.  If within the statute, a contract is void even though it may contain all the other requirements of .. even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the agreement was reached, even where witnessed, etc.. it is still void.
A.	Purpose:
1.	Fraud:  Original purpose was to protect against mistake and fraud. May, however, actually induce more fraud, not in forgery what it cuts down in perjury, but allow more sophisticated parties to make agreements that it knows fall within the statutes and thus won’t be enforced.
2.	Cautionary Function:  To assure deliberation prior to commitment to promises concerning an important matters.  However, application of the statute is generally without regard to the importance of the transaction. 
3.	Channeling Function:  To specify a method by which ones intentions may be legally actuated.  Can still allow inequitable situations as courts generally have enforced a contract against the party who signed it even the statute of frauds would prevent enforcement of the non-signing party
B.	Exceptions:
1.	Injustice:  To avoid injustice the court makes many exceptions depending on several factors:
A.	Availability of other remedy.
B.	Substantial character of the action or forbearance in relation to remedy sought
C.	Extent to which forbearance evidences the making and terms of promises.
D.	Reasonableness of the actions of forbearance.
E.	Extent to which such forbearance was foreseeable by the Promisor.
2.	Reliance:  When P relied on contract and there has been part-performance by him of certain kinds.  This reliance is termed essential reliance and will take it out of the statute based upon precedent and the factors considered to avoid injustice.
3.	Statutory:  There are many statutory exceptions to this which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Some are just widely recognized, others are codified, some states dig to find benefits where non were really conferred, and others allow reliance of any kind to take the contract out of the statute.
4.	Restitution:  Where the reliance of one side has resulted in unjust enrichment of the other, the statute of frauds does not stand in the way of recovery based upon restitution.
5.	Demand for Signature:  One party is excused from further performance of any contract where upon demand for a sufficient writing from the other party that party refuses.  Upon refusal, if the contract is within the statute party may recover based upon restitution or any other exception; if signed, however, party is bound to by the contract and its terms.
C.	Kind of writing required:
1.	Content:  Must contain name of parties, quantity and price.  May even omit price if it is for the sale of goods, as the price can be had from the market.
2.	Type:  Need not be an official document, may be a letter sent from one party to another, or to a third party.  Writing could be a record, diary, a stickum pad, etc.. need not be a writing between the parties.
3.	Signature:  Any identifying mark that would reasonably identify the party or parties:  initials, company logo, stamp, company letterhead, letter on official paper.  Signature of an authorized agent suffices also.
4.	Correctness:  Any error contained does not invalidate the writing.  The terms may be reformed based upon oral testimony.
5.	Loss:  If there was a previous writing which was lost, any evidence of its existence would be sufficient, and its contents derived from testimony.
6.	Recission:  Oral recission of a contract based upon sufficient writing is usually allowed.
7.	Wholeness:  Writing need not be in one piece as long as each piece is signed or if the wording of the pages flows together well.
D.	Sale of Goods, U.C.C Section 2:
1.	¤2-201(1): REQUIREMENTS.
	Any contract for sale of goods over $500 requires a sufficient writing, requiring:
A.	Names of the parties, though need not specify buyer and seller
B.	The quantity of the good to be sold.
2.	¤2-201(2):  NOTIFICATION.
	Between Merchants unless notification of objection is sent within 10 days of delivery of confirmation of contract satisfying (1), the defense of the statute of frauds is removed.
3.	¤2-201(3):  ENFORCEABILITY WITHOUT WRITING.
A.	Contract for specially manufactured good not suitable for resale to others is enforceable once substantial beginning has been made in manufacture or make commitment to procure goods.
B.	If D party admits the contract in any pleading, testimony or otherwise in court it become enforceable to the quantity admitted.
C.	Once payment has been made or goods accepted the contract is enforceable but only for that portion accepted unless the cannot be partitioned, then enforceable to the whole.
E.	Sale of Interest in Land:
	All contracts for the conveyances of interests in land require a sufficient writing.  Interests include such things as fees, estates, easements, but not leases shorter than one year and license for use.
1.	Interests Included:  Fees, estates, easements, and leases longer than one year, and those that will take longer than a year to complete (e.g. - for one year to start in a month).  Does not include leases shorter than one year, and licenses to use.
	However, leases for one year to start at a later date ARE within the statute. (Boone v. Coe)
2.	Anomalies:  
A.	Promises to share the proceeds of transfer is not promise conveying land.
B.	Promises to dies intestate so that it will transfer is not promise conveying land, though the promise to include someone in a will is.
C.	Sale of crops, timber, and the like are not promises conveying land, but attached chattels.
D.	Sale of minerals or attached structures are not promise conveying land if they can be separated from any conveyance of the land.
3.	Exceptions:  
A.	Reliance may take it out depending upon the amount by which such reliance evidences the agreement and the injustice that would result if not enforced.
B.	Part performance make that takes it out of the statute make the full enforcement of expectancy enforceable.
C.	After conveyance of the land payment is enforceable.
D.	Boundary disputes are enforceable if marked and relied upon.
E.	Conveyance is enforceable when done in exchange for services rendered over long time.
F.	Oral agreements to sell are enforceable if party has taken possession AND made some payment OR made improvements.
F.	Contracts to Be Performed Within One Year:
1.	Rule:  Enforceable unless there is not any chance that it will be performed in one year.
A.	EARLY DISCHARGE: Early discharge does not constitute performance, thus that a two year contract is performed in one year does not make it enforceable
B.	UNSPECIFIED LENGTH:  Contracts of unspecified length are enforceable.  Contracting a 21 year old for life is enforceable, because there is a chance that his life could end within one year, but contracting 120 year old on his death bed for 366 days is not as cannot be performed within one year.  To contract for “as long as it takes” is enforceable too.
2.	Entirety:  Major purpose need be completed within one year, not entire contract.
A.	THE POSSIBLE:  To ensure against fire for 5 years is enforceable as major purpose could be fulfilled if house burns, and could do so at any time.
B.	THE IMPOSSIBLE:  Contract to sell 5 crops of potatoes is impossible to complete within one year and thus not enforceable.
C.	PART-PERFORMANCE:  If one side DOES complete within one year, the other side’s part of the bargain is enforceable even though it may take longer than one year.
D.	INSTALLMENTS:  Agreements that have installments occurring within a years span are enforceable.  Thus agreement to pay every six months for X years is enforceable.  The exception is for work, which is not consider an installment.  Thus work for 6 month under a 3 year oral agreement and are discharge, may not get enforcement.
G.	SURETY, ANSWERING FOR THE DEBT OF ANOTHER:
	Any promise made by one to a creditor to answer for the debt of another is within the statute.
1.	Reliance:  Makes no difference, it is within the statute even though have consideration or has been relied upon to extend credit or forebear collection.
2.	Donors:  Donor is not surety for his donee, thus a person who is buying a gift for someone is not really promising to answer for the debt that they are incurring by what he gives.  This would void all enforcement of purchases at Christmas.
3.	Promises to Creditor:  A promise made to the debtor to pay the creditor are enforceable.
4.	Selfish Promises:  Promises made for own benefit are outside the statute if the creditor had reason to know of this at the time contract was formed.
H.	Promises of Executor or Administrator:
	This is a special subclass of acting as surety and functions similarly
I.	Promises on Consideration of Marriage:
1.	Consideration:  If all or part of the consideration of the agreement is that of marriage, it is unenforceable, unless the promises is for marriage in return (and even this is not enforceable in most jurisdictions).
2.	Examples:  
A.	Not Enforceable:  If you marry my daughter you may have my land and business.
B.	Enforceable:  Where marriage is only the condition of the promise, such as the promise to give someone all your cookware when they marry if she clean your house each Wednesday for a year.
2.	Enforceable Types of Contracts:
A.	Form: legal formalities
1.	Functions Performed:  Same as for Statute of Frauds.
A.	Evidentiary Function:  Give evidence that a contract exists in the event of a controversy, and compels the spelling out of the promise in a manner sufficiently ceremonious to impress its terms on participants and possible bystanders.
B.	Cautionary Function:  The adherence to formalities (e.g. - affixing of seals, making a writing) is a device for inducing the circumspective frame of mind appropriate in pledging ones future.  As is true of the use of language in general, legal forms are fraught with dangers for the uninitiated, thus requiring more thought and any difficulty they present makes it more sure that one will seek advised counsel.
C.	Channeling Function:  Formalities furnish a simple and external test of enforceability.  For is for a legal transaction what the stamp is for the coin, relieving us of the necessity of test in the metallic content and weight, it affixes the value.  Form offers a legal framework into which the party may fit his actions, or it offers channels for the legally effective expression of intention.  It forces one contemplating a legal transaction to arrange his set of overlapping objectives, and channel them into a form which will most nearly accomplish these objectives.  Also protects the uninitiated where uncertainty exists by placing limits and boundaries on the person.
2.	Contracts Under Seal:  Originally all contracts were to be under seal, which would make a contract binding by its presence alone.  Now, in the US however, the seal is of little importance.  In more than one third it still has this effect, though it is not necessary.  Several states use it as presumptive evidence of veracity.  Half of the states have abolished all distinction between sealed an unsealed instruments.
3.	Alternatives to Seal:  A few states hold written agreements binding even without consideration, but most do require consideration.  To avoid the need for consideration one can in many jurisdiction use a “declaration of trust”  wherein one declares oneself to be the trustee of some property for which title is transferred to the intended recipient and then stipulates the terms under which transfer will be completed.
B.	Consideration:
1.	The Bargain Principle:  Contract law is based on the principle of exchange.  The law does not enforce inconsiderate (gratuitous) promises for several reasons:
A.	Expectancy:  The law wishes to protect reasonable expectancy, but it is really reasonably only where the agreement was made based upon a quid pro quo bargain.  To enforce the gratuitous promise, is to reward where injury is only psychological and neither pecuniary or physical, a thing which the law is sparing to do.
B.	Ensure Reliance:  Any rule to ensure reliance would in practice tend to discourage it.  Proving reliance is a difficult task to perform in court, and would thus make one hesitant even though it was legally protected, and thus it is best to make recovery based on promise independent of reliance.
C.	Risk Shifting:  The best argument for enforcing gratuitous contracts is the case where it is primarily designed as a risk shifting device.  But this is a complex tool best used by the sophisticated and resourceful, and thus disfavoring those most favored in the eyes of contract law, the weak, the foolish, and the unsophisticated.
2.	Consideration:  
A.	In General:  The waiver of any legal right at the request of another is sufficient to sustain a promise.  The forbearance of one side is the part of importance, even if what the other side is getting out of it is unclear, if they requested it their benefit is presumed.
B.	Foolishness:  The law allows you to be a fool, and the parties are the best judges of the relative worth of exchange.  Where gross and flagrant inequity exists, this may be overcome, by holding one side’s pittance exchanged to be more than a pretense upon a gratuitous promise. (Hamer v. Sidway)
C.	Condition Precedent:  Where one sides of the promise is merely a condition for its receipt, that side is not considerate.  Asking a beggar to come cross the street to give him some money, does not make the promise enforceable when he does.  This was merely the necessary condition for you to give him your gratuitous gift.  (Kirksey v. Kirksey, brother-in-law tells sister that if she move down, he will give her a home to live in)
D.	Good Faith:  Consideration for a contract must be made in good faith:  you must believe that it is something you can trade and their must be some basis for this belief.  (Duncan v. Black, trading cotton allotments is not consideration as they are non-transferable)
E.	Illegal and Amoral Matters:  Illegal or amoral matters will not be held up by the court as consideration.  An agreement to sell someone into slavery will not be enforced upon payment by one side.
3.	Nominal Consideration:  
A.	Commercial Entities vs. Individuals:  Between individuals, where there is a gross inequity in cost and benefit, there is a presumption that the nominal consideration given was no more than a pretense for a gratuitous gift.  Between commercial entities the presumption is reversed, there is a presumption that the agreement was bargained for, and the nominal amount need not even be paid.  Though there are cases that hold that you had better pay it.
B.	Context:  If the nominal amount given is no more than a pretext for a gift, there is no consideration. However within the context of a larger bargain, or when traded for the incommensurable it is considerate.
C.	Firm Offers, UCC ¤2-205:  No option to buy made in writing may be revoked for lack of consideration, but the option may not be longer than 3 months.
4.	Duress:  Contracts made under duress are unenforceable
A.	Classic Duress:  Duress was originally only for such cases where there was threat of great bodily injury.  It was later expanded to situations where one was threatened with the imprisonment (response to debtor prison) or use of the criminal system.  Only recently has it been applied elsewhere.
B.	Bargaining Power:  Where the weaker party is forced to give great cost for a minor benefit for the stronger party, under threat of doing what that party may have the legal and unconditional right to do, may be duress and void the contract.
C.	Economic Plight:  Bad economic plight is not duress so long as the other party’s actions did not willfully induce it.  Applying financial pressure in such contexts does not constitute duress.
D.	Threats:  Generally, where one has the legal right to do something, one also has the right to threaten to do so.  A threat to take you business elsewhere is not duress for any concessions that the business owner may make.
C.	Social and Family Relations:
	Arms Length:  Agreements made within the bonds of immediate family, among close friend, or in casual social situations are generally not enforceable.  There is the general requirement that the bargains be made at arms length.
1.	Lack of Specificity:  The obligations and the benefits involved in social exchange are unspecific and incommensurable in any single quantitative medium of exchange.  They are not only not quantifiable externally, but internally as well, and even were specific benefit are conferred they are usually only symbols of some underlying mutual support, and not made as bargain.  Further, there are many things which money can’t buy, and cannot be traded for it.
2.	Triviality:  Most promises made within social and familial relations are small and thus overwhelmed by the cost that would be incurred in enforcement.  Where the consideration is not trivial and is in fact specific, the nature of the relation and the agreement may still make it unenforceable for the reasons mention in (1), if it were to be tied within the incommensurable nature of ongoing relationships.
3.	Express Agreements:  Agreements within these types of relations have a heightened requirement for being express.  The court runs too great a risk of making error if it looks to imply contracts within such ambiguous relations.  An express contract may overcome the familial relationship hurdle, and the consideration and promise also face a heightened specificity agreement.
3.	Formation of Contracts:
A.	General Requirements:
1.	General: To form a contract there must be offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, etc.
2.	Reliance on Promise:  A contract is formed when one party makes promises which he intends to be and/or are in fact reasonably relied upon to form the basis of the other agreeing to what is requested in return.  (Hawkins v. McGee)