The topic of this podcast is federal jurisdiction in contracts cases, specifically how the case got to federal court, and what law the federal court will look to in deciding the case.
The topic of this podcast is when consequential damages can be recovered for breach of contract because they are foreseeable. The podcast examines the rules established in Hadley v. Baxendale to determine if a loss is foreseeable and therefore recoverable as a consequential damage, as well as some practical effects of those rules. It also looks at how Article 2 of the UCC handles disclaimers for liability for consequential damages.
There are three sets of defenses that might be used to avoid enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid: (i) capacity related defenses; (ii) assent related defenses; and (iii) public policy related defenses. The topic of this podcast is the basic concepts related to the assent related defenses of fraud and misrepresentation.
The topic of this podcast is the basic concept of good faith. Good faith, sometimes called the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, is an implied term in a party's obligation of performance in every contract. The podcast examines both the subjective and objective standards of good faith. It discusses the obligations of good faith under the common law - as expressed in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 - and the Uniform Commercial Code § 1-304.
This podcast will explain when a court will supply a condition even where the parties have not expressly written one into the contract. It distinguishes between a promise and a condition under Restatement (Second) Contracts §§ 2 and 224. This podcast references two other podcasts: Express Conditions and the Excuse of Conditions that is used by courts to avoid harsh results of conditions.
The topic of this podcast is impossibility, impracticability and frustration. Ordinarily we expect the parties to perform their contracts under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, meaning promises are to be kept. Contract law, though, does provide excuse for non-performance (meaning a party is not in breach) in the event of certain contingencies the nonoccurrence of which are basic assumptions of a contract. This podcast covers the three distinct grounds for excuse provided by contract law: (i) impossibility; (ii) impracticability; and (iii) frustration of purpose.
The topic of this podcast is the basic concepts related to incapacity defenses to enforcement of a contract, which includes infancy, mental illness, and intoxication. The incapacity defenses seek to protect vulnerable people in society (children, those suffering from mental illness or intoxication) from exploitation by others in the contracting process.
The topic of this podcast is the basic concepts related to invitations to negotiate or preliminary negotiations and other types of communications that are not offers. In particular, we will look at the basic attributes of advertisements, price quotations, invitations to bid, and auction sales.
The topic of this podcast is the basic concepts related to communications in the contracting process governed by the Mailbox Rule. More particularly, we will look at the rules governing the effect of an offeree’s response by mail or an offeror’s attempt to revoke an offer using the mail.
This podcast explains how to determine if the offer is one that can be accepted by a return promise, a return promise or performance or whether a return performance is required. Sometimes you will hear reference to bilateral and unilateral contracts. The terms bilateral and unilateral do not relate to the number of parties to the contract. Instead, a bilateral contract is where there is a set of mutual promises made by both parties.
There are three sets of defenses that might be used to avoid enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid: (i) capacity related defenses; (ii) assent related defenses; and (iii) public policy related defenses. The topic of this podcast is the basic concepts related to the assent related defense of mistake. This podcast will also distinguish the doctrine of misunderstanding, which sometimes gets confused with mistake. Misunderstanding is not a defense at all, but a doctrine that when used prevents contract formation.
This podcast explores the basic concept of mitigation, or, as it is sometimes called, avoidable consequences, which is used in computing damages. Mitigation is a principle that can limit a plaintiff’s recovery in a claim for breach of contract. The principle is stated in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 350(1). The podcast also discusses Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. and the twist on the common law rule of mitigation found in U.C.C. § 2-704.