Random 1
A man and his friend visited a bar for a plate of hot wings. The man, who had been unemployed for nearly a year, commiserated with his friend that he was so broke he could barely afford a bus ride home from the bar. The friend was aware that the man had been out of work for some time. After both had consumed several drinks, the man said to his friend, “I’ll pay you $50,000 if you drink that bottle of hot sauce.” The friend drank all the hot sauce in the bottle.
Did a valid contract form between the man and his friend?
An offer made in jest cannot form a contract if the offeree knows or has reason to know that the offer is a joke. Conversely, if a reasonable person in the offeree’s position could construe a communication as a genuine offer, then the communication is an offer sufficient to form a contract, even if the communicator does not subjectively intend to enter into a contract and be legally bound. This rule is a corollary of the general principle that whether an offer exists is based upon an offeree’s reasonable perceptions, not the offeror’s subjective intent.
In a contract between a homeowner and a painter, the entirety of the agreement was that the painter would paint the homeowner’s house on August 1.
Which of the following statement(s), if either, would constitute an anticipatory repudiation by the painter?
C. Both of the above statements constitute anticipatory repudiations
A father was planning his son’s birthday party and decided to ask his friend, who was a magician, to come to the party and entertain the kids. The father offered his friend $300 as payment for performing at the party, which was scheduled for three months later. The friend did not reply. No other communication occurred between the father and the friend until the friend showed up at the party in his magician attire, prepared to entertain the kids. However, the father had hired another magician and told the friend to leave, refusing to pay the friend anything. The friend sued the father for breach of contract.
Is a court likely to conclude that the father and friend formed a contract?
In general, if an offer is silent on the timing of acceptance, then the offer terminates after a reasonable time, which is determined as a factual matter, considering all the circumstances. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 41(2). In the case of a conversation between two individuals, where the offeror does not indicate the time during which the offer will remain open, the offer will often terminate by lapse of time as soon as the conversation ends.
An entrepreneur agreed to purchase a store from the store’s owner for $100,000. After signing the contract, the entrepreneur spent $50,000 on inventory to supply the new store. However, the store owner then refused to perform the contract. As a result, the entrepreneur resold the inventory at the best market price available, which was $30,000. The entrepreneur brought a breach of contract claim for reliance damages against the store owner. The court found that the owner had breached the contract and moved on to determine the amount of damages.
If the owner is able to prove that the entrepreneur would have lost $5,000 selling the inventory at the store (had the contract been performed), how much is the entrepreneur likely to recover in reliance damages?
To determine reliance damages, “the injured party has a right to damages based on his reliance interest, including expenditures made in preparation for performance or in performance, less any loss that the party in breach can prove with reasonable certainty the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 349. This means, when awarding reliance damages, the court will first set an amount that places the injured party in the position that he would have been in had the contract never been made. See id. § 344(b). After that amount is determined, the court will then subtract any expected loss that the breaching party can prove the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed.
A buyer sought to purchase a used television from an online auction site. The buyer emailed the seller, asking, “Does the television work?” The seller, who was not a merchant, responded, “Yes, just like new!” The buyer purchased the television. After the buyer received the television, he found that its casing had numerous scratches and dents. However, the television functioned perfectly. The buyer sued the seller, alleging that the seller had breached a warranty because the television was not “just like new.”
What is the seller’s best argument for why she did not breach a warranty to the buyer?
During the process of interpretation, courts use several standards and rules to determine the meaning of the contract. Writings are to be “interpreted as a whole,” and “all writings that are part of the same transaction are interpreted together.”
A painter and a homeowner orally agreed that the painter would paint the exterior of the homeowner’s house for $500, plus the cost of supplies. A few days before work was to begin, the parties signed a written contract that indicated that the total price of the painter’s services and supplies was to be $500. All the other terms of the agreement were contained in the contract except the color that the house was to be painted. On the day the painter was to begin work, the homeowner orally told the painter what color to paint the house. The painter purchased the necessary supplies and painted the house to the homeowner’s satisfaction. The homeowner paid the painter exactly $500.
The painter brought a breach of contract action against the homeowner for the cost of supplies.
Assuming the court finds the written contract to be a binding, partially integrated agreement because of the open term regarding paint color, is the painter likely to be permitted to introduce evidence that the parties originally agreed to the price of $500, plus the cost of supplies?
In a binding, integrated agreement, the parol evidence rule will exclude extrinsic evidence that is inconsistent with the agreement. This means that a completely or partially integrated agreement may not be modified by a prior agreement or a contemporaneous oral agreement. The rationale behind the parol evidence rule is that the parties to an agreement will include all of their terms in a written contract, so any terms that are not in the written contract were not intended to be part of the final agreement. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213 (1981); U.C.C. § 2-202 (2002). Here, the original agreement that the homeowner would pay $500, plus the cost of supplies, is inconsistent with the later written contract that specified that the painter’s services and supplies would cost a total of $500. Therefore, the written contract’s price term superseded the original oral agreement.
A landscaper contracted with a hotel owner to purchase an old hotel for $150,000. The landscaper made a $10,000 advance payment at the time the contract was executed. After the contract was executed, but before the closing date, the landscaper began redesigning the hotel’s landscaping. This work increased the value of the property by $30,000. The hotel owner subsequently repudiated the contract and refused to deliver title to the hotel on the closing date.
If the landscaper sues the hotel owner for money damages only, what would the landscaper be likely to recover?
The Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides that a party’s restitution interest is equal to “(a) the reasonable value to the other party of what he received in terms of what it would have cost him to obtain it from a person in the claimant's position, or (b) the extent to which the other party's property has been increased in value or his other interests advanced.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 371 (1981). Further, the injured party has the right to claim damages for “any benefit that he has conferred on the other party by way of part performance or reliance.
A woman who was hosting a party began negotiations with a caterer. The caterer offered to cater the party for $10,000. The woman stated that she needed some time to think about it. The caterer handed the woman a signed offer sheet that stated that the offer was good for four months in exchange for payment of $100. The woman wrote the caterer a check for $100 and stated that she would get back to the caterer in one month at most.
How long, if at all, is the caterer bound to keep the offer open?
An option contract is a promise that meets the requirements for contract formation and limits the offeror’s power to revoke the offer. The offeree provides consideration in exchange for the offeror’s promise to keep an offer open for a specified time. A valid, enforceable option contract makes the offer irrevocable for the specified time. In contracts for the sale of goods to which the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applies, certain promises to keep an offer open, called firm offers, are irrevocable even without consideration. Firm offers are made by merchants in a signed writing that explicitly assures the offeree that an offer will be kept open. Firm offers cannot be left open for longer than three months.
A landlord owned a large piece of commercial property that housed several buildings and a common parking lot. The landlord was negotiating a lease for Building 101 with a potential tenant. The landlord orally promised the potential tenant that the 20 parking spaces directly in front of Building 101 would be set aside for the exclusive use of the occupant of that building and could not be used by other businesses in the complex. The landlord and the tenant later executed a written lease agreement for “Building 101” that made no specific mention of the parking spaces. After the tenant moved in, the landlord refused to set aside any spaces for the tenant’s exclusive use.
If the tenant sues the landlord for breach of contract, for which purpose will the evidence of the oral promise NOT be admissible?
The parol evidence rule excludes extrinsic evidence that is inconsistent with a binding, integrated agreement. This exclusion means that a completely or partially integrated agreement may not be modified by a prior agreement or a contemporaneous oral agreement. The rationale behind the parol evidence rule is that the parties to an agreement will include all of their terms in a written contract, so any terms that are not in the written contract were not intended to be part of the final agreement.
A couple contracted with a nanny to care for their children for eight hours each day of the workweek. As they were discussing the terms, the couple told the nanny that they generally paid $15 per hour, and the nanny agreed that this was a good rate. When they finalized the agreement, the parties signed a completely integrated contract that specified an hourly rate of pay for the nanny of $12 per hour, plus lunch and dinner paid for by the couple. At the time the parties signed the contract, the couple mistakenly believed that the nanny was in agreement with the change based on subsequent discussions. However, the nanny mistakenly believed that the parties had settled on the rate of $15 per hour. The nanny discovered the mistake when the couple paid the nanny for the first month of work.
If the nanny brings suit against the couple for the $15 per hour rate, who is likely to prevail?
In a binding, integrated agreement, the parol evidence rule excludes extrinsic evidence of a prior oral agreement that is inconsistent with, or contradicts, the integrated written agreement. This means that a completely or partially integrated agreement may not be modified by a prior agreement or a contemporaneous spoken agreement. The rationale behind the parol evidence rule is that the parties to an agreement will include all of their terms in a written contract, so any terms that are not in the written contract were not intended to be part of the final agreement
A man was searching for plastic cups that could be printed with his employer’s logo. The cups were to be used at an industry convention in one year. The man called a novelty-goods supplier, who regularly dealt in goods with printed logos, such as pencils, cups, hats, and other apparel. The supplier orally stated that he would sell the man 1,000 cups for $1,000. The man stated that he would think about it and call back. The supplier informed the man on the phone that, if the man paid a $50 deposit, the supplier would keep the offer open for two months. The man agreed and paid $50. One month later, the man called back, accepted the supplier’s offer, and provided payment information to place an order for 1,000 cups for $1,000. The supplier refused to accept the order and informed the man that the price of the cups was now $2,000.
Is the supplier’s promise to keep the offer open for two months a firm offer under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)?
An option contract is a promise to keep an offer open. At common law, a promise to keep an offer open must be supported by consideration. Under the UCC, certain promises to keep an offer open are enforceable without consideration as so-called firm offers. A firm offer is a writing signed by a merchant that by its terms gives assurance that the offer will be held open. If the writing does not specify a time for which the offer will be held open, the offer will be held open for a reasonable time. Regardless of whether a time period or what time period is specified, firm offers are irrevocable for a maximum of three months
A homeowner contracted with his neighbor to buy the neighbor’s “working lawn mower” for $150, with the mower to be delivered and the payment to be made the following month. The contract contained no terms related to which party would maintain the lawn mower prior to the date of performance or related to which party bore the risk of loss in the event that the lawn mower was destroyed prior to the date of performance. After the contract was made and unbeknownst to the neighbor, the neighbor’s son continued to use the lawn mower and didn’t change the oil, severely damaging the mower’s engine and rendering the lawn mower useless on the date that the homeowner and the neighbor had agreed to perform the contract.
Can the homeowner avoid buying the lawn mower from his neighbor?
In such a contract, the doctrines of impossibility and impracticability are generally used by the seller, while the doctrine of frustration of purpose is generally used by the buyer, because payment of the contract price would rarely be considered impossible or impracticable. A party may avoid performance under the doctrine of frustration of purpose when that party’s principal purpose in making the contract, which was known to the other party, is substantially frustrated due to changed circumstances that make the other party’s performance virtually worthless to the party seeking to avoid performance.
A painter contracted to paint a homeowner’s house for $1,000, paid in advance. When the painter was halfway done, the painter left the job and never returned. The homeowner diligently pursued other painters to finish the job but could not find anyone who could finish the job for less than $2,000. The homeowner contracted with a painting service to complete the job for $2,000. On the final day of the painting, one of the new painting service’s employees drove over a $100 flowerpot that the homeowner kept next to the driveway, completely destroying it. The homeowner sued the original painter for breach of the original painting contract.
Assuming that the original painter breached the contract, what amount of damages is the court likely to award to the homeowner?
A. $1000
B. $1,100
C. $2,000
D. $2,500
C. $2,000
Here, because the lost benefit is capable of calculation, the court will most likely award expectation damages to try to give the homeowner the benefit of the original bargain with the painter. The original painter received $1,000 in advance, but only did half the work. As a result, the homeowner had to pay the painting service $2,000 to finish the other half. Thus, at the time of the lawsuit, the homeowner had already paid $3,000 for a job that the homeowner had contracted to be done for $1,000. Accordingly, the painter owes the homeowner expectation damages in the amount that the homeowner paid in excess of the original bargain, which was $2,000 (the amount it took for the job to be completed after the original painter’s breach). Finally, the original painter would not likely be responsible for the incidental or consequential loss of the flowerpot, because this loss could not have been foreseeable to the original painter.
A woman entered into a contract to purchase a commercial building. The contract she signed stated that she would receive the building and “its contents” for a certain price. When the woman went to occupy the building, she saw that the seller had removed all of the furniture. The woman sued the seller for breach of contract. The seller sought to introduce evidence that prior to the signing of the contract, he had told the woman that the “contents” of the building referred only to fixtures, not movable items such as furniture.
Assuming the court finds the written contract to be a binding, completely integrated agreement, is the court likely to allow the introduction of this evidence?
The parol evidence rule excludes extrinsic evidence that is inconsistent with a binding, integrated agreement. This exclusion means that a completely or partially integrated agreement may not be modified by a prior agreement or a contemporaneous oral agreement. The rationale behind the parol evidence rule is that the parties to an agreement will include all of their terms in a written contract, so any terms that are not in the written contract were not intended to be part of the final agreement. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213 (1981); U.C.C. § 2-202 (2002). There are several exceptions to the parol evidence rule. One such exception is that extrinsic evidence is admissible to clarify the meaning of an ambiguous term. Id. at § 212.
A car dealer purchased a used car at auction for $8,000. The car had a market value of $10,000. The dealer offered to sell the car to a couple for $10,000 or, if the couple promised to buy their next car from this same dealer, for $8,000. The couple agreed, and the parties signed a contract that explicitly included the $2,000 deduction in price being given to the couple in return for their agreement to purchase their next car from the dealer. The couple then paid $8,000 for the vehicle and took delivery. Shortly thereafter, the couple purchased their next car at a competing auto dealer.
If the original car dealer brings suit against the couple for breach of contract, what is the likely result?
The Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides that “[a] party is entitled to restitution under the rules stated in this Restatement only to the extent that he has conferred a benefit on the other party by way of part performance or reliance.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 370 (1981). Here, the dealer’s performance included the $2,000 reduction in price that the dealer gave to the couple in reliance on the couple’s promise to purchase their next car from the dealer. Therefore, the dealer should be able to recover the $2,000 benefit that was conferred on the couple by the dealer’s performance. Compensatory damages may be inappropriate, however, because it may be difficult to prove with certainty what the car dealer actually lost by not selling the second car to the couple.
A homeowner agreed to buy a neighbor’s car for the fair market value of $16,000. The two-year-old car was a popular make and model in excellent condition. The contract specified that, if for any reason the homeowner failed to pay the full $16,000 on the agreed date of the sale, the homeowner would owe the neighbor $16,000 as liquidated damages. The homeowner was subsequently laid off and was unable to purchase the car on the date of the sale. The neighbor immediately sued the homeowner for breach of contract, seeking $16,000 in liquidated damages.
Is the court likely to enforce the liquidated damages provision of the contract?
Parties to a contract may, as part of their agreement, set a predetermined amount of damages as liquidated damages in the event of a breach; such a liquidated damages provision will only be enforced by a court if the amount is reasonable in light of the anticipated or actual loss caused by the breach. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356 (1981). However, “A term fixing unreasonably large liquidated damages is unenforceable on grounds of public policy as a penalty.” Id. In addition, “damages are not recoverable for loss that the injured party could have avoided without undue risk, burden, or humiliation.” Id. § 350. Here, because the car was only two years old, in excellent condition, and of a popular make and model, it is likely that the neighbor would find another buyer. Therefore it is unreasonable for the parties to have anticipated that the neighbor’s loss, in the event of the homeowner’s breach, would amount to the full contract price.
A sculptor agreed to create a sculpture for an art collector. The parties reduced their agreement to a completely integrated written contract that specified that the collector would pay the sculptor $10,000 for the sculpture. Upon completion and delivery of the sculpture, however, the collector paid only $7,500.
The sculptor brought a breach of contract claim against the collector for the remaining $2,500. The collector seeks to introduce evidence of an email exchange between the parties, which exchange occurred several weeks after the parties signed the written contract. The collector argues that this email exchange proves that the parties agreed to change the original price from $10,000 to $7,500.
Is this evidence likely to be barred by the parol evidence rule?
Under the Restatement (Second) of contracts, “[a] binding integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that it is inconsistent with them.” Restatement (Second) Contracts, § 213 (1981). Here, the facts state that the parties’ written contract was a completely integrated agreement. However, the parol evidence rule would not exclude the later dated email exchange, because the rule applies only to prior agreements or contemporaneous oral agreements. Therefore, evidence that the parties made an additional agreement after the written contract was signed is not barred by the parol evidence rule and may be introduced to show an attempt at modification of the final agreement.
A family contracted with a moving company to move their belongings from an apartment they were renting to a new home. The total price of the move was $1,200. The contract stated that the date of the move needed to be the last day of the month or earlier, so that the family could avoid paying extra rent for holding over at their apartment. Staying extra days at the apartment were charged at $100 per day. On the morning of the move, the last day of the month, the moving company’s owner contacted the family and informed them that his company would be unable to move the family and suggested that the family contact other movers. The family contacted three reputable movers, and the cheapest alternative was a $2,000 move on the third day of the month, which also happened to be the earliest any company would do the move. With no other options, the family agreed. At the end of the move, the family discovered that the new movers had placed an identifying sticker on an antique table. The sticker’s adhesive caused $400 in damage to the table’s finish.
In a breach of contract claim brought by the family against the original moving company, what damages, if any, would the family be likely to recover?
Expectation damages are based on the injured party’s interest in having the benefit of the bargain. When awarding expectation damages, the court will set an amount that places the injured party in the position that he or she would have been in had the contract been fully performed.
Here, the family contracted to get all their belongings moved to their new home for $1,200. By breaching the contract and requiring the family to contract with a different mover, the company would be responsible for the difference in price. In this case, the difference was $800. Additionally, the family had to pay $300 in holdover fees because the moving company failed to fulfill the agreement to have the family out of the apartment by the end of the month. This is a consequential loss suffered by the family, which would be the responsibility of the moving company. However, the moving company would not be responsible for the damage caused by the new movers’ sticker adhesive on the antique table. As the restatement indicates, damages are only recoverable for losses that could be reasonably foreseeable
A business signed a contract to purchase a piece of industrial equipment from a manufacturer for $10,000. The contract contained a clause stating that the business had the right to return the equipment for a partial refund but did not specify a deadline for return. The business was not satisfied with the equipment and tried to return it for a partial refund on the thirtieth of the month, but the manufacturer refused to accept it. The business sued the manufacturer. The manufacturer sought to introduce evidence at trial that it had orally agreed with the business at the time of sale that the deadline for return of the equipment was the twentieth of the month.
What best describes the nature of the contract between the business and the manufacturer, and the admissibility of the manufacturer’s evidence?
A partially integrated agreement is a writing that has been adopted by the parties as a final but incomplete statement of the terms. For a partially integrated agreement, parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or negate a term in the written agreement, but it is admissible to supplement the agreement.
A stamp collector had a collection consisting of over 12,000 stamps spanning 400 hundred years and 50 countries. After decades collecting, restoring, and maintaining the stamps, the collector fell into financial distress and decided that the monetary value of the collection was more useful than the collection itself. On appraisal by two different experts, the collection was valued at $100,000. To expedite a sale, the collector signed a contract to sell the entire collection to a historian for $80,000, which the historian was ready and able to pay. However, at the time of delivery, the collector refused to tender the collection after deciding that it was too special to sell at any price.
What remedy, if any, would most likely be both available to the historian and adequate in providing the historian with the benefit of the bargain?
A court will only order specific performance where (1) damages are inadequate to make the injured party whole, (2) the terms of the contract are definite, and (3) the order will not be disproportionately burdensome for the court to enforce. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 360 (1981); see also id. §§ 362, 366. Several factors are considered to determine whether damages are adequate as a remedy: (1) the difficulty of proving damages with reasonable certainty, (2) the difficulty of using damages to procure a substitute for the breaching party’s performance, and (3) the likelihood of collecting damages.
A car slid off the road and became wedged between two trees, preventing the owner from escaping the car. A tow truck driver saw the car, stopped and got out of the truck, and approached the car. The tow truck driver waved at the trapped car owner, who was barely visible through the windshield, and gestured to the tow truck, intending to offer towing services. The trapped car owner did not see the tow truck driver and was banging his fists against the windshield in an attempt to break the windshield. From the tow truck driver’s vantage point, it appeared that the car owner pressed his hand against the windshield in a “thumb’s up” sign. Honestly believing that there was a contract for towing services, the tow truck driver used the truck’s equipment to pull the car free from the trees, allowing the owner of the car to safely exit the vehicle. Some days later, the tow truck driver sent a bill to the car owner for the market price of services rendered in freeing the car.
If the car owner disputes the bill and asserts that there was no contract or agreement for the towing services, what is the likely result?
When one party confers a benefit onto another party, believing in good faith that the parties have contracted for this benefit, courts may imply a contract for the purpose of preventing unjust enrichment. Known as a quasi-contract, this allows the party that conferred the benefit to recover restitution even when the parties’ agreement was unenforceable or there was no contract at all. The Restatement (Second) of Contracts notes that the amount of money paid as restitution damages should be awarded based on “(a) the reasonable value to the other party of what he received in terms of what it would have cost him to obtain it from a person in the claimant's position, or (b) the extent to which the other party's property has been increased in value or his other interests advanced.”
A famous singer contracted with a concert hall to perform two shows each night for seven days in a row. A few days before the shows were to begin, a stadium down the street offered to pay the singer twice as much to perform the same shows, at the same times and on the same nights as the singer had agreed to perform at the original concert hall. The singer immediately called the concert hall’s booking agent and stated that she (the singer) would not perform under the original contract because she wished to move her shows to the stadium. The concert hall would lose a substantial amount of goodwill in the industry, which loss would be impossible to calculate or prove, by a cancellation of the singer’s shows so close to the time of performance, as well as by the resulting public perception that the singer preferred the stadium as a venue.
If the concert hall brings suit in the proper court, what would be the concert hall’s most promising basis, if any, for directly or indirectly enforcing the original contract?
A. The concert hall should ask the court to order specific performance of the original contract (and should ask for provable damages in the alternative).
B. The concert hall should ask the court to order an injunction prohibiting the singer from performing at the stadium on the dates and times of the original contract (and should ask for provable damages in the alternative).
C. The concert hall has no promising basis to enforce the contract, although it may be able to recover damages in the form of lost profits.
D. The concert hall has no promising basis to enforce the contract, although it may be able to recover damages for both lost profits and loss of good will.
B. The concert hall should ask the court to order an injunction prohibiting the singer from performing at the stadium on the dates and times of the original contract (and should ask for provable damages in the alternative).
A court may order an injunction where (1) damages are inadequate to make the injured party whole, (2) the terms of the contract are definite, and (3) the order will not be disproportionately burdensome for the court to enforce. See id. §§ 359-362. Here, the singer was refusing to perform because there is a more lucrative opportunity elsewhere. A court could find that all the requirements of an injunction would be met, thus preventing the singer from singing at the stadium during the same days and times as stated in the contract with the concert hall.
A foreign stamp collector was interested in purchasing a collection of rare and valuable stamps from a seller in the United States. The seller showed the collector one group of stamps in a display case. The seller then showed the collector a second group of stamps in a separate display case. The collector believed that both groups of stamps were part of a single collection that had simply been divided for display purposes. The seller intended for each group to be a separate collection and was offering the collector alternative options for purchase. Because the collector spoke very little English, the seller and the collector were unable to effectively communicate with each other. The collector pointed to the first display case and wrote on a piece of paper, “$100,000 for the stamps.” The seller agreed, believing that he was selling only the collection in the first case. The collector believed that he was purchasing the stamps in both cases.
How will a court likely rule as to the validity of the contract between the collector and the seller?
The terms of a contract may be ambiguous if they have multiple meanings or involve a misunderstanding between the parties. If the parties had different meanings for a term due to a misunderstanding, then the court will typically find a lack of mutual assent and void the contract.
A contractor agreed to build a gazebo for a homeowner for $8,000, with payment in full due upon completion of the work. The contractor spent $5,000 on supplies and worked for several days on the project. When the gazebo was nearly complete, a tornado damaged it. At that point, the damaged gazebo and the contractor’s labor had improved the value of the homeowner’s property by $4,000. The homeowner demanded that the contractor rebuild the gazebo entirely, but the contractor refused to do so without additional compensation. The homeowner then refused the contractor access to the property to complete the job and, instead, hired another builder. The other builder repaired the gazebo for $1,000. The original contractor sued the homeowner for restitution damages.
How much in restitution damages is the original contractor likely to recover?
Here, the contractor conferred a benefit upon the homeowner, even though the gazebo is not yet finished and was damaged. After accounting for the gazebo and the contractor’s labor, the value of the homeowner’s property increased by $4,000. The homeowner here has not paid the contractor anything and is therefore unjustly enriched by this increase in property value. Therefore, the contractor is entitled to restitution damages of $4,000, which represent the value of the unearned benefit conferred on the homeowner.
A recent law school graduate signed an employment contract with a law firm to begin working the next month. As part of the contract, the graduate agreed to reject any other offers of employment, and she in fact rejected two subsequent offers from other firms. Two weeks before her starting date, the graduate learned from a reliable source that the firm that she was going to work for had declared bankruptcy.
If the graduate immediately seeks legal advice regarding her options, what course of action should the advising attorney recommend to best protect the graduate’s interests?