CONTRACTUAL ASSENT
I.
A. The
Objective Standard for Determining Assent
i.
Assent
to a contract is determined by regarding the apparent intent of the parties as shown by their overt acts
and words.
ii.
A
person can be bound if his words or actions, reasonably interpreted, indicate assent even though he did not mean
to make it or to make it on the apparent terms.
B. The
Reasonable Person Construct
i.
Manifestations
of assent are interpreted from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the position of the party to whom the
manifestation was made.
ii.
Don’t
ask what the words did mean, but rather how they should have been understood if interpreted reasonably in the context of the transaction.
C. Deliberately
Undisclosed Intent
i.
If
purpose was to gain unfair advantage or evade responsibility, could be held
liable for fraud.
ii.
If
purpose was a joke/to have fun at other party’s expense, objective standard may
hold jokester accountable for something not intended.
D. Remedies
i.
Expectation Damages – The amount of money needed to put the victim in the
financial position she would have been in had the contract not been breached.
ii.
Specific Performance – Court order compelling the defendant to perform the
contract.
E. Modern
Approach to Choice Between Damages and SP
i.
Burdensome
on system to enforce an order for specific performance.
ii.
If
loss is calculable with some accuracy, an award of damages likely more
efficient – compensates plaintiff w/out forcing performance out of a reluctant
defendant.
iii.
In
some cases (esp. those involving personal services), courts hesitate in making
an order of SP because it comes uncomfortably close to involuntary servitude.
i.
Kobil
Development Corp. v. Mignot (Oregon Supreme Court, 1977)
Plaintiff
alleged oral contract with the Defendant to provide helicopter service for a
construction job. Breach occurred. Defendant claimed no breach because no
contract. Defendant objected to
testimony from Kabil VP during trial regarding his subjective belief that a
contract had been formed. Court held
that although it subscribes to the objective theory of contracts, it need not
follow that the test prevents a party from testifying on whether he thought he
was entering into an agreement.
Rule: Subjective
evidence can supplement objective evidence when determining whether a
contract has been formed by mutual assent.
ii.
Lucy
v. Zehmer (Virginia Supreme Court, 1954)
Lucy
argued breach on Zehmer’s agreement to sell him a farm for $50,000. Parties had conversation in bar. Zehmer wrote agreement to sell on a napkin,
but contends it was a joke. Court held
Zehmer upheld the contract, stating that not only did Lucy believe, but the
evidence shows he was warranted in his belief that the contract represented a
serious business transaction and a good faith sale and purchase of the
farm.
Rule: Court must look
to the outward manifestation of a person’s intent rather then to his secret and
unexpressed intention.
II.
OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE
A. What
is an Offer?
i.
The Definition of an Offer
The
manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify
another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and
will conclude it. The wording and
context of the offer must make it clear to the offeree that her acceptance will
bind the parties immediately. If the offeror retains the right to make
the final decision, the proposal is
not an offer but merely an invitation to negotiate or to make an offer to
the person making the proposal.
ii.
Interpreting Intent to Determine if It
is an Offer
When
it is not clear, from the content of the document or the context,
interpretation is considered a matter of law for the judge to decide. If contextual evidence exists, the
ascertainment of meaning becomes a factual matter more properly handled by a
jury.
B. Intent
to Contract
i.
Objective
theory of contracts: Contract
law follows the objective theory of
contracts. That is, a party’s intent is deemed to be what a reasonable person in the position
of the other party would think that the first party’s objective manifestation
of intent meant. For instance, in
deciding whether A intended to
make an offer to B, the issue
is whether A’s conduct
reasonably indicated to one in B’s
position that A was making an
offer.
1.
Example:
A says to B, “I’ll sell you my house for $1,000.” If one in B’s position would reasonably have
believed that A was serious, A will be held to have made an
enforceable offer, even if subjectively A
was only joking.
ii.
Legal enforceability: The
parties’ intention regarding whether a contract is to be legally enforceable will normally
be effective. Thus if both parties intend and desire that their “agreement” not
be legally enforceable, it will not be. Conversely, if both desire that it be
legally enforceable, it will be even if the parties mistakenly believe that it
is not.
1.
Example:
Both parties would like
to be bound by their oral understanding, but mistakenly believe that an oral
contract cannot be enforceable. This arrangement will be enforceable, assuming
that it does not fall within the Statute of Frauds.
iii.
Presumptions: Where
the evidence is ambiguous about whether the parties intended to be bound, the
court will follow these rules: (1) In a “business” context, the court will presume that the parties
intended their agreement to be legally enforceable; (2) but in a social or domestic situation, the
presumption will be that legal relations were not intended.
1.
Example: Husband
promises to pay a monthly allowance to Wife, with whom he is living amicably.
In the absence of evidence otherwise, this agreement will be presumed not to be
intended as legally binding, since it arises in a domestic situation.
iv.
Intent to put in writing later: If two parties agree (either orally or in a brief
writing) on all points, but decide that they will subsequently put their entire
agreement into a more formal written document later, the preliminary agreement
may or may not be binding. In general, the parties’ intention controls. (Example: If the parties intend to be
bound right away based on their oral agreement, they will be bound even though
they expressly provide for a later formal written document.)
v.
Where no intent manifested: Where the evidence of intent is ambiguous, the court will generally
treat a contract as existing as soon as the mutual assent is reached, even if
no formal document is ever drawn up later. But for very large deals (e.g.,
billion dollar acquisitions), the court will probably find no intent to be
bound until the formal document is signed.
C. ADVERTISEMENTS
AS OFFERS
i.
Is an Advertisement an Offer or a
Solicitation?
Most
advertisements in the mass media are not offers to sell, because they do not
contain sufficient words of commitment to sell.
They may just be invitations to the public to come and purchase.
1.
What Makes a Proposal an Offer Rather
than a Solicitation?
If
the advertisement contains words expressing the advertiser’s commitment to sell
a particular number of units, or to sell the items in a particular manner,
there may be an offer.
a.
Look
for words of commitment – these suggest an
offer.
i.
Example: “Send three box tops plus $1.95 for your free cotton
T-shirt,” is an offer even though it is also an advertisement; this is because
the advertiser is committing himself to take certain action in response to the
consumer’s action.
2.
The Impact of Legislation on the
Interpretation of Advertisements
ii.
Case Summaries
1.
Lefkowitz
v. Great Minneapolis
Surplus Store – Advertisement
saying “First Come-First Served.” This
is clear, definite, and explicit, and
leaves nothing open for negotiation.
Rule: Ads can constitute offers if they call for
performance of a specific act without further communication and leave nothing for
further negotiation.
2.
Harris
v. Time, Inc. – There was
a contract, because the offer existed and the acceptance came in the form of
opening the envelope – Unilateral contract (BUT case ended up being dismissed
on other grounds).
3.
Leonard
v. Pepsico – Pepsi
Points contest with advertisement using a Harrier Fighter Jet. The absence of any words of limitation
renders this alleges offer sufficiently indefinite so that no contract could be
formed. Obvious joke would not give rise
to contracts.
Rule: An advertisement
isn’t transformed into an enforceable offer merely by a potential offeree’s
expression of willingness to accept the offer through completion of an order
form.
Post a Comment