This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Contracts Outlines

Contracts Full Course Outline

Updated Contracts Full Course Outline Notes

Contracts Outlines

Contracts

Approximately 99 pages

Hello! These are my outlines for Contracts, based on Knapp, Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (8th ed.)

The Full Course Outline provides detailed notes and case briefs on every issue covered in the first-year contracts law class. It is precise and comprehensive enough to pretty much substitute for reading the textbook. Some of my friends used these notes when they hadn't done the reading and successfully relied on them to answer cold calls.

The Exam Attack Outline is a very conc...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contracts Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

*NB: This outline accords with Knapp, Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (8th ed.)

Table of Contents

Objective theory of contract (book p. 5-46) 2

Mutual assent/unilateral contracts (book p. 46-75) 7

Other methods of reaching mutual assent (book p. 75-96) 19

Consideration (book p. 98-144) 22

Contract formation under the UCC (book p. 144-158) 27

Battle of the forms & Electronic contracting (book p. 159-207) 33

Promissory estoppel (book p. 213-281) 40

Restitution and promissory restitution (book p. 282-325) 51

Statute of Frauds (book p. 333-380) 57

Principles and sources of interpretation (book p. 381-412) 62

Parole evidence rule (book p. 412-442) 66

Implied obligation of good faith (book p. 472-524) 73

Warranties (book p. 530-550) 76

Minority and incapacity (book p. 555-584) 79

Undue influence, misrepresentation and nondisclosure (book p. 584-622) 82

Syester v. Banta (1965) Iowa Supreme Court 83

Unconscionability (book p. 622-661) 85

Public Policy (book p. 661-702) 87

Mistake (book p. 702-724) 87

Impossibility, impracticability, frustration of purpose (book p. 724-782) 88

Express conditions, material breach (book p. 785-836) 90

  1. Basis of contractual obligation

    1. Mutual assent

      1. Objective theory of contract

      2. Unilateral contracts

      3. Other methods of reaching mutual assent

    2. Consideration

    3. Formation under the UCC

      1. Mutual assent

      2. Battle of the forms (qualified acceptance)

    4. Electronic contracting

  2. Liability in the absence of bargained-for exchange

    1. Reliance on gratuitous promises

      1. Promissory estoppel: family

      2. Promissory estoppel: commercial

    2. Unaccepted offers

      1. Limiting the offeror’s power to revoke

    3. Liability for benefits received

      1. Restitution

      2. Promissory restitution

  3. Statute of frauds

    1. Common law

    2. Sale of goods under UCC §2-201

  4. Meaning of the agreement

    1. Principles and sources of interpretation

    2. Parol evidence rule

      1. Classical view

      2. Modern view

      3. UCC

  5. Supplementing the agreement

    1. Implied terms

    2. Obligation of good faith

    3. Warranties

  6. Avoiding enforcement

    1. Minority and incapacity

    2. Bargaining misconduct

      1. Duress and undue influence

      2. Misrepresentation and nondisclosure

    3. Unconscionability

    4. Public policy

  7. Justifications for nonperformance

    1. Mistake

    2. Changed circumstances

      1. Impossibility

      2. Impracticability

      3. Frustration of purpose

    3. Contractual modifications

  8. Consequences of nonperformance

    1. Express conditions

    2. Material breach

    3. Anticipatory repudiation

Objective theory of contract (book p. 5-46)

Allen v. Bissinger & Co (1923)

Supreme Court of Utah

  1. Rule of Law

    1. If a party’s words or acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree to the matter in question, that agreement is established, and it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of the party’s mind upon the subject.

  2. Facts

    1. Plaintiff: Allen. Resided in NY. Official reporter for Interstate Commerce Commission.

    2. Defendant: Bissinger & Co. Corporation buying and selling furs in Salt Lake City, Utah.

    3. P seeks to recover fees for furnishing D copy of report of proceedings before ICC.

    4. No substantial conflict in evidence, which mostly consists of written communications between parties.

    5. P offered copy of proceedings; D ordered copy. P sent first quarter, then second quarter. D rejected second quarter, and requests cancellation of order. P replies that P cannot accept cancelation for part of report, since labor was already expended. P continues to send third and fourth quarters of report. P sends bill for full report. D says D will not pay.

    6. D argues that correspondence did not create a contract, since offer in P’s letter was not accepted: P offered to furnish copy of hearings, D agreed to take copy of an “official report of the different changes in the handling of freight.” Therefore, says D, parties did not refer to same thing in transaction.

  3. Procedural History

    1. Trial court resulted in findings and judgment for P, which D has appealed.

  4. Legal Question

    1. If a party’s words or acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree to the matter in question, is the real but unexpressed state of the party’s mind upon the subject relevant to determining whether there was an agreement?

  5. Holding and Reasoning: Cherry, J.

    1. No, based on application of 13 C.J. 265

    2. Rule in 13 C.J. 265: “The apparent mutual assent of the parties, essential to the formation of a contract, must be gathered from the language employed by them, and the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of its words and acts. It judges of his intentions by his outward expressions and excludes all questions in regard to his unexpressed intention. If his words or acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree to the matter in question, that agreement is established, and it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind upon the subject.”

    3. P offered one specific thing, an “official report.” D asked for “your official report of the different charges […]” D’s letter does not describe report exactly, but can be reasonably understood to refer to the official report, since no other report is referred to in P’s offer, and it is in response to P’s offer. D’s responses to P referred to uselessness and expense, rather than to misrepresentation or fraud, until this action was filed.

    4. Trial court judgment affirmed.

Lonergan v. Scolnick (1954)

California District Court of Appeal

  1. Rule of Law

    1. If the promisee knows or has reason to know that the promisor does not intend it as an expression of his fixed purpose until he has given a further expression of assent, the promisor has not made an offer.

  2. Facts

    1. Defendant: Scolnick. Placed ad in LA newspaper to sell a property in Joshua Tree.

    2. Plaintiff: Longergan. Lived in New York. Responded to ad.

    3. P seeks $3581, the difference between D’s stated price ($2500) and the value of the land ($6081).

    4. P inquired after ad for further details. On March 26, D wrote to P describing the property, giving...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contracts Outlines.

More Contracts Samples