contracts archive fall 2013
Fall 2013 Contracts Exam
Memo on Fall 2013 exam
Fall 2013 certainty essay
Fall 2013 good faith essay
This discussion of Bad Answers, Good Answers, and Terrific Answers may be helpful.
DECEMBER 2: SOMEONE LEFT THEIR CONTRACTS BOOKS IN MY OFFICE TODAY. I WILL BE HERE UNTIL 7.15PM AND YOU CAN PICK THEM UP BEFORE THEN. IF YOU HAVEN’T PICKED THEM UP BY THE TIME I LEAVE I WILL DROP THEM OFF AT THE LIBRARY FRONT DESK ON MY WAY OUT.
Material on this page will periodically be transferred to the Contracts Archive Fall 2013.
Dean’s fellow sessions with Anaili Medina will generally be held in Room E352 on Wednesdays from 2pm-2:50pm and Thursdays from 5pm to 5.50pm.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Next week there will be a review session on Monday December 2, 11.00 am – 12.30pm in A110.
Here is a link to the recording of the session on Tuesday November 26.
Here is the list of Appointments December 2-3 as of the afternoon of November 26. If you would like to speak to me in person it would make sense to touch base with one of the people who has signed up to see if you can join one of these sessions. I am also happy to answer questions by email but I will be more likely to answer your emailed questions on Saturday and Sunday than before then as I will be traveling.
Review Sessions:
Tuesday November 26, 11.00 am – 12.30pm in F209 – note this is not our normal classroom.
We will finish the discussion of the Contracts Hypo (Nov. 12) and discuss the Fall 2013 Sample Exam. I have arranged to audiotape this session as some members of the class have a conflict.
Monday December 2, 11.00 am – 12.30pm in A110.
I am available to meet with you individually or in small groups on Monday and Tuesday next week and on December 2 and 3. Here is the current version of the sign up sheet for December 2 and 3:
Nov. 25, 2.15pm: Apppointments Dec 2-3
I have agreed to some requests for more than 1 appointment. If necessary I can add some appointment times, for example on Monday evening.
I am also happy to answer questions by email until about 9.00 pm on December 3.
WEEK 14: November 18-22 For this week please read AT&T Mobility v Concepcion (US Supreme Court 2011); Mckenzie v Betts (Supreme Court of Florida 2013); and Franks v Bowers (Supreme Court of Florida 2013).
We will also find time next week to look at the Contracts Hypo (Nov. 12).
I have scheduled the following review sessions:
Tuesday November 26, 11.00 am – 12.30pm in F209 – note this is not our normal classroom.
Monday December 2, 11.00 am – 12.30pm in A110.
In addition I am happy to try to answer questions by email or you can make an appointment to speak to me. I will plan to be in my office for most of the day on November 25 and 26 and December 2 and 3.
Here is the Fall 2013 Sample Exam
November 19: If you are interested (this is not required for the exam) you can see oral argument in DK Arena v EB Acquisitions here.
November 20: Here is what my appointment sign up sheet for December 2 and 3 looks like (it is on my door). If you want to meet with me next Monday or Tuesday please email me to set up an appointment (or drop in my office tomorrow or Tuesday between 10 am and the start of class). I will also answer questions by email.
WEEK 13: November 11-15 On Tuesday we will finish the material on preliminary negotiations (to casebook p 271) and please also read Siga v Pharmathene (Delaware Supreme Court 2013). Next week we will also focus on the Statute of Frauds. Please read pages 273-281 of the casebook, UCC §2-201 and DK Arena Inc. V. EB Acquisitions I LLC (Supreme Court of Florida 2013).
November 12: Here is a Contracts Hypo (Nov. 12)
With respect to Siga v Pharmathene, a Mintz Levin Corporate and Securities Alert recommends specific terms in a letter of intent excluding any obligation to negotiate in good faith, such as this one:
The parties agree that this letter of intent does not constitute a binding commitment by either party with respect to any transaction, [with the exception of the confidentiality and exclusivity sections set forth above.] The non-binding provisions of this letter of intent reflect only the parties’ current understanding of the contemplated transaction, and a binding contract will not exist between the parties unless and until they sign and deliver one or more definitive agreements, which will contain material terms not set forth in this letter of intent. No obligations of one party to the other (including any obligation to continue negotiations) or liability of any kind shall arise from executing this letter of intent, a party’s partial performance of the terms of this letter of intent, its facilitating or conducting due diligence, its taking or refraining from taking any actions relating to the proposed transaction or any other course of conduct by the parties [other than breach of the confidentiality and exclusivity provisions set forth above]. The parties agree that neither party shall have a duty to negotiate in good faith and that either party may discontinue negotiations at any time for any reason or no reason. Any letters, drafts or other communications shall have no legal effect and shall not be used as evidence of any oral or implied agreement between the parties.
November 12: SIGA published a press release after the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision that stated:
SIGA Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:SIGA) reported today that the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the award of an “equitable payment stream” by the Court of Chancery in its May 31, 2012 Final Order and Judgment in PharmAthene, Inc. v. SIGA Technologies, Inc. and also remanded the case to the Court of Chancery for further proceedings to determine appropriate damages.
William J. Haynes II, SIGA’s General Counsel, commented, “We are pleased with the Delaware Supreme Court ruling issued on Friday. The Supreme Court’s decision states that PharmAthene may only obtain damages for its lost expectancy if it can prove them ‘with reasonable certainty.’ We intend to establish to the Chancery Court, consistent with that Court’s earlier conclusions, that PharmAthene’s evidence of expectancy damages is speculative and too uncertain, contingent, and conjectural to permit an award.”
DK Arena v EB Acquisitions holds that promissory estoppel does not solve a lack of compliance with the Statute of Frauds. We have seen that promissory estoppel often solves problems of formalities with respect to contracting (and in some jurisdictions will solve Statute of Frauds problems). Why is promissory estoppel not applicable in this context in Florida?
After we have covered this material (this will be in week 14) I am going to ask you to read three other unedited court decisions:
1. AT&T Mobility v Concepcion (US Supreme Court 2011)
2. Mckenzie v Betts (Supreme Court of Florida 2013)
3. Franks v Bowers (Supreme Court of Florida 2013)
These three decisions address the relationship between the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and state law. Justice Scalia’s opinion in AT&T v Concepcion begins:
Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) makes agreements to arbitrate “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”9 U.S.C. §2.
Unconscionability is a ground under state law for treating contracts as unenforceable, and courts had used the doctrine of unconscionability to invalidate arbitration agreements. McKenzie v Betts and Franks v Bowers allow us to see how the Supreme Court of Florida has dealt with arbitration challenges after the decision in AT&T v Concepcion.
I am also including the themes material here for your convenience:
1. Distinguishing between enforceable and unenforceable promises.
Here is an example of a question I asked last Spring:
“Should the courts, as the arm of the state, enforce every statement made in the form of a promise? The courts have never thought so. But as soon as we accept the need to divide the enforceable from the unenforceable, we encounter the difficult task of articulating the criteria for deciding which is which.”…
Discuss…. (Spring 2013) (edited to exclude language not applicable to our class because the casebook was different last Spring).
Another question I could ask:
“You cannot walk away from a contract that you can fairly be deemed to have agreed to, merely because your performance turns out to be a hardship for you.”(Judge Posner in Union Carbide v Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. 7th Cir, 1991)
Discuss.
2. Formalities versus fairness (formal requirements of contract law compared with promissory estoppel). Promissory estoppel allows courts to provide a remedy for injustice where there is detrimental reliance on a promise. But the formalities of contract law seem to provide the benefit of certainty. Have the cases you have read balanced these different interests appropriately?
3. The importance of context and/or the significance of text. We have read cases arising in a number of different contexts, such as employment, construction, sale of goods, family relations. How does the context matter? As to text, sometimes the specific words used matter a lot. At other times perhaps not so much.
Here is an example of a question I could ask about context:
“Plaintiffs ask us to limit ProCD to software, but where’s the sense in that? ProCD is about the law of contract, not the law of software.”(Judge Easterbrook in Hill v Gateway (7th. Cir, 1997)
Discuss.
WEEK 12: November 4-8 We didn’t even make it through the assigned reading for last Tuesday this week, so I am not going to assign new reading for this upcoming week. We will aim to finish the chapter this coming week.
November 6: I referred yesterday to Judge Easterbrook’s article, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse (1996 U. Chi. Legal F 207) in which he wrote:
There is no reason to distinguish contract terms from any other aspect of a product’s composition. A buyer of a computer does not control the quality of the circuits; the seller arranges both product attributes and contract terms. Just as no one would think of saying that the buyer of a computer with a 500 MB disk really is “entitled” to a 750 MB disk, or a faster disk, on the ground that disk size and speed is a “contract of adhesion,” so it is foolish to complain about contract terms. These all are mediated by price. “Better” terms (as buyers see things) support higher prices, and sellers have as much reason to offer the terms consumers prefer (that is, the terms that consumers find cost-justified) as to offer any other ingredient of their products. It is essential to enforce these terms if markets are to work.
I also referred to the Treadmill Problem we experienced. Here are links to the materials: Why I Do Not Have A Treadmill (Sears Can’t Deliver); Monday Treadmill Update; Tuesday Sears Update: Important Information About Your Treadmill; On the Treadmill Treadmill; Sears Treadmill Saga Notes; Sears Feels the Power of the Press; The Grand Finale (Probably).
November 3: As you begin to review and outline this class in preparation for the final exam it would be a good idea to think about the materials in light of some of the themes we have considered during the semester. I think that we can identify the following themes:
1. Distinguishing between enforceable and unenforceable promises.
Here is an example of a question I asked last Spring:
“Should the courts, as the arm of the state, enforce every statement made in the form of a promise? The courts have never thought so. But as soon as we accept the need to divide the enforceable from the unenforceable, we encounter the difficult task of articulating the criteria for deciding which is which.”…
Discuss…. (Spring 2013) (edited to exclude language not applicable to our class because the casebook was different last Spring).
Another question I could ask:
“You cannot walk away from a contract that you can fairly be deemed to have agreed to, merely because your performance turns out to be a hardship for you.” (Judge Posner in Union Carbide v Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. 7th Cir, 1991)
Discuss.
2. Formalities versus fairness (formal requirements of contract law compared with promissory estoppel). Promissory estoppel allows courts to provide a remedy for injustice where there is detrimental reliance on a promise. But the formalities of contract law seem to provide the benefit of certainty. Have the cases you have read balanced these different interests appropriately?
3. The importance of context and/or the significance of text. We have read cases arising in a number of different contexts, such as employment, construction, sale of goods, family relations. How does the context matter? As to text, sometimes the specific words used matter a lot. At other times perhaps not so much.
Here is an example of a question I could ask about context:
“Plaintiffs ask us to limit ProCD to software, but where’s the sense in that? ProCD is about the law of contract, not the law of software.” (Judge Easterbrook in Hill v Gateway (7th. Cir, 1997)
Discuss.
What follows is still here in case you did not get a chance to read it last week:
On the issue of arbitration as a trade practice, you might want to think about the National Grain and Feed Association:
Formally established in 1901, the NGFA’s Arbitration System has operated in some form since the formation of the Association on November 9, 1896. It is believed to be North America’s oldest industry-based arbitration system.
The Arbitration System provides a fair, cost-effective and timely way to resolve disputes involving grain, feed, barge and barge freight transactions. Its use is compulsory for resolution of disputes between Active members under the NGFA’s Bylaws. The Arbitration System is also available for resolving disputes with and between Associate/Trading members if the Arbitration Rules are referenced in the underlying contractual agreement or the parties otherwise consent The Arbitration System is kept current through the amendment process at the NGFA’s annual business meeting.
WEEK 11: October 28-November 1 We will begin the week by discussing UCC § 2-207. If you are a visual learner you may want to draw up a flowchart to describe how the section works. For the end of this week I would like you to read to page 271 (say to 230 for Tuesday, 252 for Thursday and 271 for Friday).
Here is my UCC §2-207 flowchart.
Here are some Sale of Widgets Problems (corrected version 10/31/13)
On the issue of arbitration as a trade practice, you might want to think about the National Grain and Feed Association:
Formally established in 1901, the NGFA’s Arbitration System has operated in some form since the formation of the Association on November 9, 1896. It is believed to be North America’s oldest industry-based arbitration system.
The Arbitration System provides a fair, cost-effective and timely way to resolve disputes involving grain, feed, barge and barge freight transactions. Its use is compulsory for resolution of disputes between Active members under the NGFA’s Bylaws. The Arbitration System is also available for resolving disputes with and between Associate/Trading members if the Arbitration Rules are referenced in the underlying contractual agreement or the parties otherwise consent The Arbitration System is kept current through the amendment process at the NGFA’s annual business meeting.
WEEK 10: October 21-25 On Tuesday we will begin with the problem on page 170; please also read to page 194. For Thursday please read to page 221 and for Friday to page 251.
October 22: If you took my contracts midterm you should be able to collect your answers with my comments tomorrow (probably in the afternoon). Here is my Memo on the Fall 2013 Contracts Midterm.
WEEK 9: October 14-18 Here is the Contracts Midterm Fall 2013. Please look at this. After I have finished reading the exams we will go over the question in class and I will post a memo on the exam to the blog. If you did not take this midterm and feel you would like to write out an answer I am happy to read your essay.
For Tuesday October 15, please read to page 156, for Thursday to page 184 and for Friday to page 212.
October 14: You may enjoy reading about EULAs (end-user licensing agreements) here.
Here is the video of the oral argument in Williams v Ormsby:
Here is the Pepsi ad:
WEEK 8: October 7-11 Fall Break. Enjoy!
October 4: Here is the Contracts Midterm Fall 2013. I will post the assignments for the week after Fall Break in a couple of days.
Have a good break!
WEEK 7: September 30 – October 4 We will begin on Tuesday with D&G Stout v Bacardi, and I also plan to cover the material on restitution (to page 123). For Thursday please prepare to page 136 and for Friday to page 151.
Here are links to the recordings of class on September 26 and September 27.
WEEK 6: September 23-27 On Tuesday we will begin with Structural Polymer v Zoltek. Be sure to read UCC §2-306 and the comments. With respect to the idea that illusory promises do not create a contract see also UCC § 2-204. The UCC is designed to recognize agreements as contracts even where there are missing terms. You will be thinking about indefiniteness in contracts (see, e.g., UCC § 2-204(3)) in Elements.The UCC provides some rules to deal with matters the contracting parties do not address in their agreement. So see, for example UCC § 2-308 which provides for rules about the place of delivery where the parties have not specified a place of delivery, and UCC § 2-309 which addresses issues of timing. Rules like this, which fill in gaps in agreements, may be described as gap-filling or default rules. But the UCC rules are flexible: UCC § 2-309 says that if the contracting parties do not specify a time for any action under the contract the time is a reasonable time.
For Tuesday please also read to page 112, which includes the materials on promissory estoppel. We won’t be able to cover all of this material on Tuesday. After we have discussed the promissory estoppel material we will look at the Official Rules of the GE Jet Engine Bracket Challenge and consider whether the document is a contract.
Please read to page 123 for Thursday and to page 136 for Friday.
Here is a link to the recording of class on 9/19/13 and to the recording of class on 9/20/13.
September 24: Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing (FHTM) entered into agreements with people whereby they would sell products and services of different companies, promising that they would attain financial independence. The Federal Trade Commission took action against FHTM as a pyramid scheme:
To participate in the scheme, consumers paid annual fees ranging from $100 to $300. To qualify for sales commissions and recruiting bonuses, they had to pay an extra $130 to $400 per month and agree to a continuity plan that billed them monthly for products unless they canceled the plan. Those who signed up more consumers and maintained certain sales levels could earn promotions and greater compensation, but contrary to FHTM’s claims, the complaint alleged, its compensation plan ensured that, at any given time, most participants would spend more money than they would earn.
Some of the participants sued FHTM for for violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 68, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and Kentucky common law. FHTM invoked an arbitration agreement in its agreement. The 6th Circuit held in Day v Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc. in September 2013 that the arbitration agreement was invalid because a provision in the agreement that allowed FHTM to amend it at will meant that the agreement was illusory.
September 26: As we are learning about promissory estoppel, please think about the implications of a system in which remedies are based on ideas of fairness rather than on formal characteristics of contracts. Consider this quotation from an article by Jody Kraus and Robert Scott:
We will argue that equitable reasoning undermines efficient design not only when courts apply equitable doctrines directly, but also when courts use equitable reasoning to guide their application of formal doctrine to the facts of contract disputes. The most profound effect of equity on American contract law, therefore, is its gravitational influence on the judicial application of formal doctrine in contract disputes
Jody S. Kraus and Robert E. Scott Contract Design and the Structure of Contractual Intent 84 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1023, 1034-5 (2009).
Week 5: September 16-20
On Tuesday we will begin with Lake Land Employment Group v Columber, starting with the different views expressed by the majority and in the two dissenting opinions. Florida courts have followed the approach the majority took in this case, for example in Open Magnetic Imaging Inc. v Nieves-Garcia (Fla. 3rd. DCA, 2002). For Tuesday please also read to page 80 (you are not required to read this decision, but I think it is useful to note Florida decisions and rules at some points during this class). Please read to page 92 for Thursday and to page 106 for Friday.
Here is the link to the audio recording of the class on September 13..
On Friday I mentioned that in Harris v Time, Inc. the court commented on the consideration issue but also disapproved of the litigation as a waste of resources. Here is an excerpt:
Although most of us, while murmuring an appropriate expletive, would have simply thrown away the mailer, and some might have stood on principle and filed an action in small claims court to obtain the calculator watch, Joshua’s father did something a little different: he launched a $15 million lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court…. assuming (as we must at this juncture) that the allegations of the complaint are true, Time made an offer proposing a unilateral contract, and plaintiffs supplied adequate consideration for that contract when they performed the act of opening the envelope and exposing themselves to the sales pitch within…
This lawsuit is an absurd waste of the resources of this court, the superior court, the public interest law firm handling the case and the citizens of California whose taxes fund our judicial system. It is not a use for which our legal system is designed.
As a practical matter, plaintiffs’ real complaint is that they were tricked into opening a piece of junk mail, not that they were misled into buying anything or expending more than the effort necessary to open an envelope. If Joshua’s mother lost the initial skirmish in the battle of direct mail advertising by opening the envelope, she could have won the war by simply throwing the thing away. If she were angry she might even have returned Time’s business reply envelope empty, requiring Time to pay the return postage. If she felt particularly hostile, she might have inserted a nasty note or other evidence of her displeasure in the reply envelope. A $15 million lawsuit, filed in a superior court underfunded and already overburdened with serious felony prosecutions and complex civil litigation involving catastrophic injury from asbestos, prescription drugs and intrauterine devices, is a vast overreaction. The law may permit junk mail to be delivered for a lower cost than the individual citizen must pay. It does not require that the public subsidize junk litigation.
September 17: Rewards. You may enjoy this posting on rewards at Law and the Multiverse. Here is a link to the Official Rules of the GE Jet Engine Bracket Challenge. Is this a contract?
Week 4: September 9-13 Next week we will not have class on Thursday. I will schedule a make-up class. On Tuesday we will begin where we left off, thinking about Webb v McGowin and Harrington v Taylor. I asked you to think about about the analogy in Webb v McGowin to a doctor providing an antidote to a poison. In due course we will read Cotnam v Wisdom (Casebook p 114)(doctors can recover compensation for the value of medical services provided to an accident victim). Boothe v Fitzpatrick is similar. But what Webb did is a bit different from the provision of medical services isn’t it? We will consider note 3 on page 58. For Tuesday please also read to page 68. Look at the problems in this section. For Friday please read to page 86 (I think this is a bit ambitious, but we will see how it goes).
Have a good weekend.
Note: Audio of class 9/5/13 (outline note of class (9/5/13)); audio of class 9/6/13.
Week 3: September 2-6
On Tuesday we will continue to discuss Hamer v Sidway. Please also prepare to page 48 for Tuesday. For Thursday please read to page 58 and for Friday to page 75. I will be audiotaping the classes on Thursday and Friday and will provide links to the recordings on this page in due course.
For the future I have also arranged to audiotape classes on September 13, 19, 20, 26, and 27. I will need to cancel class on September 12 and will reschedule that class for another time. If you need to miss class I am happy to discuss with you the material we cover in the missed class(es).
I said I would give you the details here of the NFL’s offer to the ticketholders for Superbowl XLV who were unable to sit in the stadium because of the problem with the temporary seating (the source is the denial of class action certification in Simms v Jones (which you are not required to read)):
1. $2,400 (three times the face value of the ticket) plus one free, transferable ticket for a
non-temporary seat at the next NFL Super Bowl game
2. One free, non-transferable ticket for a non-temporary seat at any future SuperBowl game of the fan’s choice, plus round trip airfare and hotel accommodations provided by the NFL; or
3. the greater of (i) $5,000 or (ii) an amount equal to the aggregate total of the actual, documented expenses incurred by the ticketholder, including (a) the actual price paid for the Super Bowl XLV game ticket, (b) airfare or other expenses incurred related to travel to/from the Dallas – Ft. Worth area, (c) a per diem for food, tips and ancillary charges at a daily rate of $100 a day for up to five days actually spent in the DFW area, (d) hotel lodging costs for room, internet, parking and tax for up to four nights, (e) ground transportation and parking costs incurred, and (f) expenses for renting a car in the DFW area and gas for up to a maximum of five days rental.
In class I said that number 3 looks a lot like reliance damages. How might no. 3 produce a dollar amount that was different from actual reliance damages?
September 5, 2013: Here is the link to the case brief on Dyer I mentioned in class today. Here is a link to the audiorecording of today’s class. And here is an outline note of class (9/5/13).
WEEK 2: August 26-30
This week there will be no Dean’s fellow session on Wednesday.
I have moved the material which was previously on this page to the archive.
My office hours (Room 381 in the Law Library) this semester will be 10 am to 10.50 am on Tuesdays and Thursdays and by appointment at other times.
For Tuesday next week please focus on US Naval Institute v Charter Communications and Sullivan v O’Connor. For Thursday please read to page 41 and for Friday to page 48.
[Aug. 30, 2013 I re-ordered the first class assignment and week 1 sections on this page.]
Week 1: August 19-23
Read pages 1-34 of the Casebook.
Aug. 20, 2013: The first few pages of the Casebook refer to the Restatement (2nd) of Contracts and the UCC, and tell us that the Restatement is an ALI (American Law Institute) product and that the UCC is a product of the ALI and NCCUSL.
The ALI describes itself as:
the leading independent organization in the United States producing scholarly work to clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve the law. The Institute (made up of 4000 lawyers, judges, and law professors of the highest qualifications) drafts, discusses, revises, and publishes Restatements of the Law, model statutes, and principles of law that are enormously influential in the courts and legislatures, as well as in legal scholarship and education.
NCCUSL, which now wants to be known as the Uniform Law Commission says:
The Uniform Law Commission (ULC, also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), established in 1892, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.
ULC members must be lawyers, qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators and legislative staff and law professors, who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to research, draft and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical.
ULC strengthens the federal system by providing rules and procedures that are consistent from state to state but that also reflect the diverse experience of the states.
ULC statutes are representative of state experience, because the organization is made up of representatives from each state, appointed by state government.
ULC keeps state law up-to-date by addressing important and timely legal issues.
ULC’s efforts reduce the need for individuals and businesses to deal with different laws as they move and do business in different states.
ULC’s work facilitates economic development and provides a legal platform for foreign entities to deal with U.S. citizens and businesses.
ULC Commissioners donate thousands of hours of their time and legal and drafting expertise every year as a public service, and receive no salary or compensation for their work.
ULC’s deliberative and uniquely open drafting process draws on the expertise of commissioners, but also utilizes input from legal experts, and advisors and observers representing the views of other legal organizations or interests that will be subject to the proposed laws.
ULC is a state-supported organization that represents true value for the states, providing services that most states could not otherwise afford or duplicate.
August 22: Here is the link to the discussion of Hawkins v McGee in The Paper Chase:
First Class Assignment
1. Please read the Class Policies.
2. Read pages 1-9 of the Casebook, including the notes. Some aspects of the notes will likely not make much sense at this point. For example, note 2 on page 3 refers to tort as well as to contract. You will not be learning about tort law in any detail until next semester. But you may already know that doctors are usually at risk of being held liable for failures to provide the standard of care which we expect of doctors: that is, they are usually liable in damages for negligence rather than for failure to live up to their promises.
On page 2 the authors write “Of course, the primary sources relied on in most casebooks, including this one, are cases…” Why “Of course”? Do the excerpts from the judgments in the two cases help to answer this question, or not? What does Hawkins v McGee decide? Consider the similarities and differences of the two cases.
3. By close of business (for the avoidance of doubt, this is 5.00pm eastern time) on Tuesday August 20 please send an email (subject line: Bradley Contracts Class) to my assistant, Adoracion Carrillo, at acarrillo@law.miami.edu describing two facts you would like me to know about you.
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?