Casebriefs » Intro. to Contracts

CONCLUSION

admin — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:45:59 +0000

For the reasons set forth above, we hold that an arbitration agreement incorporated into a commercial travel contract is enforceable against the minor or minor’s estate in a tort action arising from the contract. We emphasize that we decide only the narrow issue presented by the certified question. Because the validity of the release of liability in the travel contract in this case is not before us, we express no opinion whether the release is enforceable or whether its enforceability should be decided by the trial court or by arbitration. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative, quash the decision of the Fourth District, and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Common Law “Mirror Image Rule”
The Poel case is one of the many cases that discusses the common law’s “mirror image rule.” While reading the case, consider the following questions:
1. Do you believe there was a meeting of the minds-and, if so, to what extent?
2. Apply the contract rule you learned from Maddox to this case (rule reprinted below). Upon what elements did the parties fall short?
“To constitute a contract, there must be an offer by one party and acceptance by the other party…

Employment Contract and Unconscionability

admin — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:43:56 +0000

Al Safin considers a number of important contract principles in an employment contract context. While reading the case, consider the following questions:
1. What is “at will” employment? Was that the nature of employment in this case?
2. What is the doctrine of unconscionability and what differences exist between procedural and substantive unconscionability?
3. Which parts of the employment contract were unconscionable? Make sure you can state why they were unconscionable.
4. Why wouldn’t the court sever the unconscionable portions of the contract? Would you have found likewise? Why and why not?
5. Why does the court not address the procedural aspects of the contract?
Contracts 61
6. Think back to the discussion of adhesion contracts.

A Contract of Adhesion

admin — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:49:39 +0000

In the case Maddox v. Northern Natural Gas Co., (citation) the court lays out the traditional rule for determining whether a valid contract exists:
To constitute a contract, there must be an offer by one party and acceptance by the other party… In order that a contract may be valid, it is essential that the minds of the parties meet upon all of the essential elements of the contract sought to be enforced, and the acts to be done must be clear and unambiguous… In order that an offer and acceptance may result in a binding contract, the acceptance must be absolute, unconditional, and identical with the terms of the offer, and must in every respect meet and correspond with the offer; and any qualification of or departure from those terms invalidates and rejects the offer… Where a person offers to do a definite thing, and another accepts conditionally, or introduces a new term into the acceptance, his answer is a mere expression of willingness to treat, or it is a counter proposal, and in neither case is there an agreement.
A contract of adhesion creates problems with that traditional rule and definition. CORBIN ON CONTRACTS (Section:1.4 Contracts of Adhesion) defines an adhesion contract as:
The term ”contract of adhesion” has become part of the language of contract law. The origin of the term sheds some light on its meaning. It was borrowed from French scholars and was first applied in this country to insurance policies.

Exam Question for Contracts Section

admin — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:56:27 +0000

A busy executive of a major international company needs to hire an assistant to deal with public relations and press issues. She has an ad posted in various newspapers, announcing the position, describing it, and inviting applications. After examining the applications, busy executive chooses three finalists and interviews. She is particularly impressed by one of them and convinces him to take her job offer and forego others. “We’ll better their salary and prestige ultimately,” she tells the twenty-one-year-old. “There’s a six-month training period, but you’ll get through that just fine,” she indicates after they have shaken hands. The trainee asks about salary, benefits, and duties, but the busy executive shrugs off the questions with a terse reply: “We have a set policy on all these matters.…Ask the personnel and human resource department when you start.” The trainee is fired after two weeks because the busy executive wants someone else. He files suit, but the company responds that it is its policy to arbitrate all employment disputes.