December 29th, 2017 · Comments Off on Discussions in Contracts: Misunderstanding and Mistake · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
This podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin discusses the basic concepts related to the assent related defense of mistake. There are three sets of defenses that might be used to avoid enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid: (i) capacity related defenses; (ii) assent related defenses; and (iii) public policy related defenses. This podcast will also distinguish the doctrine of misunderstanding, which sometimes gets confused with mistake. Misunderstanding is not a defense at all, but a doctrine that when used prevents contract formation. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) explain that a mistake is simply a belief that is not in accord with the facts; (2) identify and explain the two types of mistakes, unilateral mistakes by one party and mutual mistakes shared by both parties; (3) identify and explain when each will afford a defense to a contract; and (4) explain when a party might bear the risk of a mistake due to allocation of risk by contract, by “conscious ignorance,” or by other circumstances.
December 20th, 2017 · Comments Off on Discussions in Contracts: Duress and Undue Influence · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
There are three sets of defenses that might be used to avoid enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid. The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to two of the assent related defenses, duress and undue influence. The defense of duress exists to protect against contracts that are obtained by some type of threat or coercion. The defense of undue influence exists for a more specialized role, to protect against assent obtained by unfair persuasion. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) distinguish between duress (an improper threat) and undue influence (unfair persuasion); (2) identify which types of threats are improper and distinguish between cases of duress involving physical compulsion making a contract void and other cases where the threat makes a contract voidable; (3) identify relationships that might lead to a claim of undue influence; and (4) describe how and when these defenses can be used to enable a party to rescind a contract otherwise validly entered into (or where the contract might be void as a result of duress resulting from physical compulsion).
December 19th, 2017 · Comments Off on Discussions in Contracts: Impossibility, Impracticability and Frustration · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is impossibility, impracticability and frustration. Ordinarily we expect the parties to perform their contracts under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, meaning promises are to be kept. Contract law, though, does provide excuse for non-performance (meaning a party is not in breach) in the event of certain contingencies the nonoccurrence of which are basic assumptions of a contract. This podcast covers the three distinct grounds for excuse provided by contract law: (i) impossibility; (ii) impracticability; and (iii) frustration of purpose. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify the three types of doctrines that apply to excuse performance under a contract due to unforeseen events; (2) determine which type of excuse are raised by a fact pattern; (3) apply the relevant test to conclude whether the excuse might be available to a party; and (4) explain when a party might not be able to claim excuse due to allocation of the risk of the event by contract or custom.
December 8th, 2017 · Comments Off on Discussions in Contracts: Overview and Sources of Contract Law · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the identification of the elements of a claim for breach of contract and the primary sources of contract law. From a legal perspective, the word contract refers to a promise or set of promises for which the law gives a remedy. The primary sources of contract law include the common law and statutory law. The common law is represented first by the decisions of courts. Second, the common law also includes, with a lesser status than court decisions, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and books and articles written about contract law. The statute most often applicable in the area of contracts is Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (sometimes called the UCC). At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) explain the basic issues involved in a contract claim; (2) identify the primary sources of contract law, the common law and Article 2 of the UCC; and (3) explain which law applies to what types of basic transactions.
December 7th, 2017 · Comments Off on Discussions in Contracts: Mailbox Rule · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to communications in the contracting process governed by the Mailbox Rule. More particularly, we will look at the rules governing the effect of an offeree’s response by mail or an offeror’s attempt to revoke an offer using the mail. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) explain and apply the mailbox rule, in particular: (i) acceptances are effective upon dispatch and (ii) rejections and revocations of offers are effective upon receipt; and (2) apply the rule in the cases of multiple or overlapping communications.
November 30th, 2017 · Comments Off on Discussions in Contracts: Mutual Assent · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to mutual assent to a contract. In particular, we will look at the requirements for contract formation, particularly the promises that indicate assent. We will also look at what is a sufficient manifestation of assent. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) describe the objective “reasonable person” standard applied to determine whether parties have manifested assent to a contract, particularly where a party has a different subjective intent, or social engagement is intended.
November 30th, 2017 · Comments Off on Discussions in Contracts: Defenses Overview · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is an introduction to defenses to enforcement of a contract based upon defects in the bargaining process, capacity of one of the parties, or public policy. There are three sets of defenses to enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid. The first set of defenses relate to capacity to contract. There are three capacity related defenses: (i) infancy (where a party is a minor, meaning below the age of majority), (ii) mental illness or defect; and (iii) intoxication. The second set of defenses involves circumstances where a party might argue that their assent to contract was flawed such that enforcement should not be had against them. There are five assent related defenses: (i) mistake; (ii) misrepresentation; (iii) duress; (iv) undue influence; and (v) unconscionability. The last set of defenses relates to contracts that violate societal norms, including illegality and public policy. Each of these defenses have their own elements that dictate whether a party can avoid the contract or whether the contract is simply void.
This podcast introduces the defenses, but an in-depth review of the defenses and their elements are left to other podcasts. At the conclusion of this podcast, you should be able to (1) identify the defenses related to incapacity, assent and public policy; and (2) describe how defenses might render a contract void or might be used to enable a party to rescind a contract otherwise validly entered into.
November 27th, 2017 · Comments Off on Discussions in Contracts: Incapacity Defenses · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to incapacity defenses to enforcement of a contract, which includes infancy, mental illness, and intoxication. The incapacity defenses seek to protect vulnerable people in society (children, those suffering from mental illness or intoxication) from exploitation by others in the contracting process. At the conclusion of this podcast, (1) you should be able to identify the three defenses related to incapacity: (i) infancy; (ii) mental illness; and (iii) intoxication; and (2) you should be able to describe how and when these defenses can be used to enable a party to rescind a contract otherwise validly entered into.
November 21st, 2017 · Comments Off on Discussions in Contracts: Statute of Frauds · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to the types of contracts governed by the statute of frauds — that is, statutes that require evidence of the contract in writing. More particularly, we will look at the categories of contracts governed by the statute, what type of writing satisfies the statute, and exceptions to the statute where a writing is not required. This podcast will introduce the statute of frauds related to sales of goods, but greater discussion of sales contracts will be taken up in a separate podcast. Analysis of a defense based upon the statute of frauds consists of three questions: first, is the contract within a category subject to the statute of frauds that requires evidence of the contract in writing; second, if so, does the contract fall within an exception to the statute of frauds that eliminates the requirement of a writing; and third, if no exception exists, is there a writing evidencing the contract sufficient to satisfy the statute? At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to explain and apply the statute of frauds, in particular: (i) identifying the categories of contracts covered by the statute of frauds; (ii) identifying the common exceptions to the statute of frauds; and (iii) determining whether a writing or writings are sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.
November 21st, 2017 · Comments Off on Discussions in Contracts: Statute of Frauds under UCC § 2-201 · Contracts, Lawdibles Audio
The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related Article 2’s statute of frauds. More particularly, we will look at when a contract is governed by § 2-201, the exceptions to the writing requirement of § 2-201, and what type of writing when required is satisfactory. Section 2-201 only applies when there’s a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more and has many exceptions, such that many contracts can be concluded without a writing. At the conclusion of this podcast you should (1) be able to explain and apply the statute of frauds under § 2-201, in particular that: (i) it applies to contracts for the sale of goods of $500 or more; (ii) when applicable, it requires a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought; and (iii) the writing is sufficient to make the contract enforceable even if it has omissions or misstatements, but not beyond the quantity stated; and (2) be able to articulate the four exceptions to the writing requirement of § 2-201: (i) merchant confirmations; (ii) specially manufactured goods; (iii) admissions; and (iv) goods paid for or received and accepted.
