Mutual Assent-Contracts Flashcards

Mutual Assent-Contracts Flashcards Player was participating in the East End Open Golf Tournament when he found a new car at the ninth tee, with signs that proclaimed that a hole-in-one would win the car courtesy of Dealer. Dealer was not around to watch, but Player made a hole-in-one. Dealer refuses to deliver the car because it had actually offered the car as a prize for the Hershey-Palmyra Charity Golf Tournament two days earlier.Would the outcome change if Player was golfing in the East End Open Golf Tournament and the sign at the ninth tee had read Hershey-Palmyra Charity Golf Tournament (see Restatement § 20(1))?Yes, no contract.§ 18 Manifestation of Mutual AssentManifestation of mutual assent to an exchange requires that each party either make a promise or begin or render a performance.Meeting of the Minds Means?Subjective intent to contractOld standard, now only objective theory of assent applies.Restatement § 21, Intention to Be Legally Bound Restatement § 21, Intention to Be Legally Bound,

states:Neither real nor apparent intention that a promise be

legally binding is essential to the formation of a contract, but a manifestation of intention that a promise shall not affect legal relations may prevent the formation of a contract.Professor invites her first year Contracts students to dine at her home for Thanksgiving dinner. If Student accepts the invitation and arrives at Professor's house at the appointed time and Professor is not there, will Student have a cause of action against Professor?Is there a binding agreement?No, the objective, community standard would not create legal consequences for a social obligation.Alelia Employee sues Connecting Computer, her employer, for sex and age discrimination. During the litigation, Connecting Computer offers to settle the litigation for $4500 total. Alelia assents to the offer of settlement, but then files a motion for attorney's fees and costs the next day (which she is entitled to under federal rules as a prevailing party). Connecting Computer moves to alter, amend or vacate the settlement (meaning they want to avoid the contract on the grounds that they intended $4500 to be their entire liability and no more).Was there a manifestation of mutual assent by both Alelia Employee and Connecting Computer to the settlement for $4500 or is this a case of misunderstanding? To determine whether there was a misunderstanding here, refer to Restatement §

20 to help you determine whether one of the parties knew or should have known of the meaning attached by the other.A. Yes, there is mutual assent if Connecting Computer thought that the settlement contract totaled only $4500, complete and Alelia Employee thought the settlement contract did not preclude her from also filing for attorney's fees and costs AND Alelia did not know of the meaning attached by Connecting Computer, but Connecting Computer had reason to know that Alelia Employee thought that the settlement contract would not preclude her from also filing for attorney's fees.B.No, there is no mutual assent (and no contract) if Connecting Computer thought that the settlement contract totaled only $4500, complete and Alelia Employee thought the settlement contract did not preclude her from also filing for attorney's fees and neither party knew of the different meaning of the other.C. Neither A or BD. A and B A and B Would Dr. Experimental be liable in the previous question if the doctor had attempted to persuade the parents for several years to permit the operation and Dr. Experimental also stated to the father, "I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred percent perfect hand."Yes, Dr. Experimental made a promise and should be liable?No. There is still no promise here.?Yes, Dr. Experimental made a promise and should be liable?Is there a contract?Clark orally promises to sell Lois a Superman comic book in return for Lois' promise to pay $

• Clark and Lois both think such promises are not binding

unless in writing.Yes, there is a contract. Restatement § 21, illustration 2.There is a contract, unless one of them intends not to be legally bound and the other knows or has reason to know of that intention.Would there be a contract if both Joker and Farmer really were joking, but a reasonable person sitting at the tavern

would have thought they were serious in making an agreement? (R2C provision?) Not contract.Restatement § 18 Comment C"Where all the parties to what would otherwise be a bargain manifest an

intention that the transaction is not to be taken seriously, there is no such manifestation of assent Is there a contract?Alice writes out a check for $ 300 payable to Bruce and delivers it to Bruce in return for a small plastic statue of a dwarf from Bruce's yard worth about $ 15. Both Alice and Bruce understand the transaction as a joke and a banter, but each believes that they would be legally bound if the other dishonestly so asserted.No contract. Neither one of them intends not to be legally bound AND the other knows or has reason to know of that intention."I have decided to sell the property that is known as the Johnson Farm. It consists of a very large plot running from Willow Street clear through the block to the next street. I am writing several people, including yourself, who have previously expressed interest in the property. My price is $50,000.(signed) Mary" Offer or Inquiry? Theory?This is an inquiry or solicitation for offers, because Mary explicitly mentioned she wrote to several people & she only has 1 property to sell.The proper standard is the objective theory of contracts to determine whether a REASONABLE PERSON would conclude that Mary's letter and John's response constituted assent to a contract.Can you sue a doctor for breach of contract if they give a medical opinion that does not turn out true for you?Not successfully, doctor's usually give a carefully worded medical prediction/opinion but they are not contracts for a specific result unless the doctor guarantees a 100% chance for a specific result.§ 20 Effect of Misunderstanding (4)(1) There is no manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange if the parties attach materially different meanings to their manifestations and(a) neither party knows or has reason to know the meaning attached by the other; or(b) each party knows or each party has reason to know the meaning attached by the other.(2) The manifestations of the parties are operative in accordance with the meaning attached to them by of the parties if(a) that party does not know of any different meaning attached by the other, and the other knows the meaning attached by the first party; or(b) that party has no reason to know of any different meaning attached by the other, and the other has reason to know the meaning attached by the first party.Howard University's faculty handbook states "It will be the practice of the University, without contractual obligation to do so, to give written notice at the following times to officers of instruction whose services are no longer required . . . ." The handbook then set out the dates on which it would give notice. Howard did not give written notice to several faculty members and discharged them AFTER the dates set forth in the handbook. These faculty members had already turned down other jobs or neglected other opportunities in reliance of the dates in the handbook. Is the "without contractual obligation" language operative here to prevent a contract with the faculty and allow Howard to discharge the professors?The court ruled that the promise to give notice was binding on Howard and that they could not use the "without contractual obligation to do so" language to prevent the formation of a contract in accordance with the handbook where the usual practice to give notice was prevalent and the faculty relied on the notice provisions.