Offer/Mutual Assent
This case lays out the foundations of the two prong test to determine mutual assent: the offeree's subjective belief that the offer was genuine and the objective view that a reasonable person would believe the offer was genuine.
Lucy v. Zehmer
Under R2K §63, acceptance by this method/rule is effective upon dispatch unless the offer specifies otherwise.
Mailbox rule
Under R2K §71, consideration must be...
Bargained for
What is the colloquial name if the follow case: Raffles v. Wichelhaus
"Two Ships Peerless"
____ makes certain contracts unenforceable unless memorialized in a signed writing, including land sales and contracts not performable within one year.
Statute of Frauds
In Dickinson v. Dodds, the court held that the seller effectively revoked the offer through this type of communication, even though no express revocation was given.
Indirect notice of revocation
Cosmo: I'll give you my wand if you clean out the fish bowl. Wanda: I accept, but I will do it for your crown instead of your wand. What is the state of this deal?
Wanda rejected Cosmo's offer and counter-offered
Under contract law, giving up a legal right is this type of valid consideration.
forbearance
R2K §204 allows courts to supply a term when the parties have an enforceable contract but their agreement has this defect.
It omits an essential term
Two people enter a deal: 19 year old Jojo, who has an eighth grade education and no assets makes a questionable deal with a 38 year old billionaire. She wants out of the deal. What is her best defense to get out of it?
Unconscionability
This case demonstrates that advertisements may constitute offers when they are clear, definite, and leave nothing open for negotiation—especially in first-come-first-served situations.
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store
Under R2K §50 and Hendricks v. Behee, acceptance by promise requires the offeree to take this step...
Communicate the acceptance to the offeror
In _________, the court held that a nephew’s promise to refrain from drinking, smoking, and gambling until age 21 constituted consideration, even though the uncle received no direct benefit.
Hamer v. Sidway
This case illustrates the strict version of the “four corners rule,” under which ambiguity must be apparent on the face of the document before extrinsic evidence is admitted.
Gassner v. Raynor
In Halpert v. Rosenthal, the court emphasized that this factor — rather than the speaker’s culpability — determines whether a misrepresentation justifies rescission.
Materiality or inducement
Mickey takes out an ad in the paper: "clubhouse for sale, best offer will be taken." Minnie messages Mickey and says she will give $500 for it. Mickey responds, saying that he has another bidder with a high number, so Minnie might have to increase her amount. At this point, who is the offeror?
Nobody - Minnie offered $500 and Mickey rejected that offer. There is no offer on the table currently.
In Marchiondo v. Scheck, part performance in a unilateral contract creates this legal effect regarding the offer...
Implied option contract rendering the offer temporarily irrevocable
When a subcontractor’s bid is relied on by a general contractor, this doctrine may bind the subcontractor even without traditional consideration.
promissory estoppel
In contract, words like "fair share," a "reasonable amount", or "some amount of money" would all qualify as ______.
Indefinite Terms
Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank:
Silence in arms length deal +
Knowingly not stated =
?????
No misrepresentation
In Koldziej v. Mason, the “million-dollar challenge” failed as a contract because the plaintiff lacked this crucial element of mutual assent.
Offeror's true intent
When a contract does not specify how to accept, the default is a ______ contract, meaning, acceptance by promise is usually enough.
bilateral
Under this principle, even a penny can be valid consideration so long as the parties genuinely bargained for it; courts invoke it to emphasize that they will not examine this aspect of a contract for fairness or adequacy.
Marra and James enter into a deal. James agrees to sell Marra "his car" in exchange for $300. James knows Marra thinks she is getting his 2003 Toyota Camry, but when the time to exchange came, James presented Marra with a 1998 Hot Wheel Red Corvette figurine. If Marra sues, who's definition of "the car," if anyone's, would the court likely apply and why?
Marra's Definition - James knows what her belief of the term is and gives her something else anyways - the court would apply the term that is known to both. (R2K § 20)
Under the doctrine applied in Radke v. Brenon, a writing that fails technical SOF requirements may nevertheless be enforced where the oral contract is proven in this manner.
Clear and uncontradicted evidence