Prospectively, not retrospectively - Tuckwiller v. Tuckwiller Public policy (void) - § 178 Promise to commit tort - § 192 Marriage - § 189 New categories sometimes, but not always, recognized - Black Industries v. Bush Exculpation clauses in adhesion contracts Strict construction - § 206, Gallligan v. Arovitch Adequate notice - § 211, Klar Public policy - § 178, O'Callaghan, cf. Henningsen Unconscionability - § 208, UCC 2-302(1), cmt. 1 Statutes regulating substance of contracts 5. REMEDIES Specific Performance Limitations Damages would be adequate - §359, 360 Bargain was unfair McKinnon v. Benedict; Tuckwiller v. Tuckwiller – Expectation Damages Loss in value + other loss cost avoided other loss avoided – – [what promised what delivered] [cost expected in performance cost actually incurred] ∆ – ∆ π – π Limitation Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Avoidability – Parker v. 20th Century-Fox Constructive Service – Incomplete or defective performance Jacob & Youngs v. Kent; Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal cf. Groves v. John Wunder Collatz Fera v. Village Plaza Uncertainty cf. – Hadley v. Baxendale Unforeseeability – Liquidated Damages Limitations Dave Gustafson v. State Penalty – Unconscionability - Henningsen Reliance Damages Restitution Damages Nominal Damages - $1 or 6¢
Prospectively, not retrospectively - Tuckwiller v. Tuckwiller Public policy (void) - § 178 Promise to commit tort - § 192 Marriage - § 189 New categories sometimes, but not always, recognized - Black Industries v. Bush Exculpation clauses in adhesion contracts Strict construction - § 206, Gallligan v. Arovitch Adequate notice - § 211, Klar Public policy - § 178, O'Callaghan, cf. Henningsen Unconscionability - § 208, UCC 2-302(1), cmt. 1 Statutes regulating substance of contracts 5. REMEDIES Specific Performance Limitations Damages would be adequate - §359, 360 Bargain was unfair – McKinnon v. Benedict; Tuckwiller v. Tuckwiller Expectation Damages Loss in value + other loss – cost avoided – other loss avoided [what ∆ promised – what ∆ delivered] [cost π expected in performance – cost π actually incurred] Limitation Avoidability – Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Constructive Service – Parker v. 20th Century-Fox Incomplete or defective performance Jacob & Youngs v. Kent; Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal cf. Groves v. John Wunder Uncertainty – Collatz cf. Fera v. Village Plaza Unforeseeability – Hadley v. Baxendale Liquidated Damages Limitations Penalty – Dave Gustafson v. State Unconscionability - Henningsen Reliance Damages Restitution Damages Nominal Damages - $1 or 6¢
Contracts%20I%20Checklist%20-%20Maggs%20-%20Fall%202010.docx