The topic of this podcast by Scott J. Burnham is UCC § 2-601, which is popularly known as the Perfect Tender Rule. Learning Outcomes On completion of the podcast, the student will be able to: 1. Recite the Perfect Tender Rule. 2. Apply the Perfect Render Rule in light of its limitations and exceptions. Visit […]
Entries Tagged as 'Contracts'
The Perfect Tender Rule Podcast: Discussions in Sales
July 14th, 2025 · Comments Off on The Perfect Tender Rule Podcast: Discussions in Sales · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio, Sales
Tags:Contracts·law school·legal education·perfect tender·sales·UCC
Right of Reclamation Podcast: Discussions in Sales
July 2nd, 2025 · Comments Off on Right of Reclamation Podcast: Discussions in Sales · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio, Sales
The topic of this podcast by Scott J. Burnham is how a seller can exercise the right of reclamation and what its limitations are. Learning Outcomes On completion of the podcast, the student will be able to: 1. Enumerate the conditions that a seller must satisfy in order to exercise the right of reclamation. 2. […]
Tags:Contracts·law school·legal education·reclamation·sales·UCC
Updated and Re-Released: Overview and Sources of Contract Law Podcast
May 9th, 2025 · Comments Off on Updated and Re-Released: Overview and Sources of Contract Law Podcast · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast is the identification of the elements of a claim for breach of contract and the primary sources of contract law. It has been updated and rerecorded to incorporate the 2022 Amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Learning Outcomes On completion of the podcast, the student will be able to: […]
Tags:common law·Contracts·law school·legal education·UCC·UCC Article 2·Uniform Commercial Code
Third Party Beneficiaries: Discussions in Contracts
May 25th, 2021 · Comments Off on Third Party Beneficiaries: Discussions in Contracts · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
This podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham discusses the topic of Third Party Beneficiaries. When can a person who is not party to a contract sue to enforce the contract? While the rule can be found in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302, it can be difficult to apply. This podcast explains how to determine […]
Tags:§ 302·creditor beneficiary·incidental beneficiary·intended beneficiary·Lawrence v. Fox·Third Party Beneficiaries
Implied Conditions: Discussions in Contracts
March 25th, 2021 · Comments Off on Implied Conditions: Discussions in Contracts · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is when a court will supply a condition even where the parties have not expressly written one into the contract. It distinguishes between a promise and a condition under Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 2 and 224. This podcast references two other podcasts: Express Conditions and […]
Tags:excuse of conditions·express conditions·implied conditions·promissory condition·Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 2·Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 224·rule of constructive conditions of exchange·substantial performance
Excuse of Conditions: Discussions in Contracts
March 16th, 2021 · Comments Off on Excuse of Conditions: Discussions in Contracts · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is when a court will excuse satisfaction of a condition to avoid the harsh effects of forfeiture when a condition fails. It also looks at what happens when a court has determined that there is a condition and the failure of the condition might cause […]
Tags:§ 229·Clark v. West Publishing Company·conditions·divisible contract·excuse·excuse of condition·express conditions·implied conditions·restitution·waiver·West Publishing Company
Express Conditions: Discussions in Contracts
March 9th, 2021 · Comments Off on Express Conditions: Discussions in Contracts · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is when language in a contract is an express condition, such that failure to satisfy the condition results in a performance not being due. A condition can be a good way to hedge in case a party is concerned that it can’t meet its commitments […]
Tags:Clark·Clark v. West Publishing Company·excuse of conditions·express conditions·implied conditions·Parol Evidence·West Publishing Company
Mitigation: Discussions in Contracts
March 2nd, 2021 · Comments Off on Mitigation: Discussions in Contracts · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
This podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham explores the basic concept of mitigation, or, as it is sometimes called, avoidable consequences, which is used in computing damages. Mitigation is a principle that can limit a plaintiff’s recovery in a claim for breach of contract. The principle is stated in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 350(1). The […]
Tags:§ 2-704·§ 350(1)·avoidable consequences·Luten Bridge Co·mitigation·Rockingham County·Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.
Certainty: Discussions in Contracts
February 17th, 2021 · Comments Off on Certainty: Discussions in Contracts · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is the basic concept of certainty in computing damages. Certainty is a principle that can limit a plaintiff’s recovery in a claim for breach of contract. According to Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 352, “Damages are not recoverable for loss beyond an amount that the evidence […]
Tags:§ 352·certainty·Freund·lost royalties·new business·reasonable certainty·Washington Square Press
Foreseeability: Discussions in Contracts
February 9th, 2021 · Comments Off on Foreseeability: Discussions in Contracts · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is when consequential damages can be recovered for breach of contract because they are foreseeable. The podcast examines the rules established in Hadley v. Baxendale to determine if a loss is foreseeable and therefore recoverable as a consequential damage, as well as some practical effects of those […]
Tags:§ 2-714(3)·§ 2-719(3)·actual knowledge·Baxendale·consequential damages·foreseeability·foreseeable·Hadley·Hadley v. Baxendale·imputed knowledge
