Reliance acts not necessarily what other side requested 45 and 62: unilateral contracts: part performance of what is asked for 90 majority: about a promise with justified reliance, not an offer: 87(2) (minority) adds reliance to an unaccepted offer as same as promise 87(2): needs reliance of substantial character (more than 90), but still minority reliance: most of the time what the seller wants, BUT: if clear you will use offer to do more, then reasonable reliance easier to find in Berryman: relied on expertise to say unreasonable Pop’s Conses v. Resorts International NJ requires clear and definite promise: have a deal, don’t renew lease Pop’s did not renew lease, to its detriment Here: promissory estoppel even though know true offer When D is taking action in reliance Test hint: careful if reliance is legal fees or storage or something they would have anyway, needs new cost Review: What an offer binding Unilateral: beginning performance or tendering is irrevocable §45 Bilateral: looking only for promise: beginning performance does nothing unless conduct that equals acceptance (take the good or something) § 62: contract that invites acceptance by performance/promise: begin performance=acceptance Traditional option contract: option supported by legally sufficient consideration 87(1): recital of purported consideration (signed in writing and pose exchange on fair minority 87(1)(b): statute: UCC 2:205 and CISG equivalent promissory estoppel: predicated on offer: Drennen (often limited to bidding) or its expansion in 87(2) to whatever (minority) promissory estoppel: reliance on promise or something less (series of assurances of deal, promise) Pop’s Cones Reasonability and detriment hashed out in injustice inquiry Injustice purpose: alternatives of enforcing promise (like have avoided the injury) or courts can put in unclean hands b. (promissee doing something dirty) B. Liability for Benefits Received: Restitution 1. Restitution in the Absence of a Promise Notes/Cases Credit Bureau Enterprises Inc. v. Pelo Guy committed to institution against will, hospital trying to recover, used stuff below (116) (didn’t get implied in fact, but used restitution under 116 in emergency situation
Reliance acts not necessarily what other side requested 45 and 62: unilateral contracts: part performance of what is asked for 90 majority: about a promise with justified reliance, not an offer: 87(2) (minority) adds reliance to an unaccepted offer as same as promise 87(2): needs reliance of substantial character (more than 90), but still minority reliance: most of the time what the seller wants, BUT: if clear you will use offer to do more, then reasonable reliance easier to find in Berryman: relied on expertise to say unreasonable Pop’s Conses v. Resorts International NJ requires clear and definite promise: have a deal, don’t renew lease Pop’s did not renew lease, to its detriment Here: promissory estoppel even though know true offer When D is taking action in reliance Test hint: careful if reliance is legal fees or storage or something they would have anyway, needs new cost Review: What an offer binding Unilateral: beginning performance or tendering is irrevocable §45 Bilateral: looking only for promise: beginning performance does nothing unless conduct that equals acceptance (take the good or something) § 62: contract that invites acceptance by performance/promise: begin performance=acceptance Traditional option contract: option supported by legally sufficient consideration 87(1): recital of purported consideration (signed in writing and pose exchange on fair minority 87(1)(b): statute: UCC 2:205 and CISG equivalent promissory estoppel: predicated on offer: Drennen (often limited to bidding) or its expansion in 87(2) to whatever (minority) promissory estoppel: reliance on promise or something less (series of assurances of deal, promise) Pop’s Cones Reasonability and detriment hashed out in injustice inquiry Injustice purpose: alternatives of enforcing promise (like have avoided the injury) or courts can put in unclean hands b. (promissee doing something dirty) B. Liability for Benefits Received: Restitution 1. Restitution in the Absence of a Promise Notes/Cases Credit Bureau Enterprises Inc. v. Pelo Guy committed to institution against will, hospital trying to recover, used stuff below (116) (didn’t get implied in fact, but used restitution under 116 in emergency situation
Contracts%20I-%20Swaine-%20Fall%202013.docx