Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

41
Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011

Transcript of Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Page 1: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Options and Rejections

Contracts – Prof Merges

2.15.2011

Page 2: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Ragosta v. Wilder

Page 3: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.
Page 4: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.
Page 5: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Ragosta v. Wilder

• Facts

• Procedural History

• Holding

Page 6: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Ragosta

• What was the effect of π’s letter in “1987” in which he mailed the check for $2000?

Page 7: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Ragosta

• What was the effect of π’s letter in “1987” in which he mailed the check for $2000?

What was the significance of Δ returning the check?

Page 8: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

$ 2000 payment

• Is it clear this was a payment to keep the offer open?

• Or was it a down payment, showing an intent to form a contract (an offer with built-in down payment)?

Page 9: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Wilder, 9/28: “I will sell you the fork shop . . . For $88,000, at any time up until the 1st of November 1987 that you appear with me [at the bank] with said sum. . . . [P]roviding said property has not been sold.”

Page 10: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Legal effect of the 9/28 Writing?

• Was it an offer?

Page 11: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Legal effect of the 9/28 Writing?

• Was it an offer?

What kind of offer?

Page 12: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Legal effect of the 9/28 Writing?

• Was it an offer?

What kind of offer?

How could it be accepted?

Page 13: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

•Why did π actually go the bank in October?

Page 14: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Effect of π’s financing expenditure: $ 7500

• According to trial court -- ?

• According to Supreme Court -- ?

Page 15: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Contrast trial court and Supreme Court

•On the expenditure of the $ 7500

•What are the respective views of the 2 courts?

Page 16: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Unilateral Contract

• “If you do X, I will do Y.”

•Bargaining for FULL PERFORMANCE, a complete act

Page 17: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Brooklyn Bridge Hypothetical

Page 18: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Brooklyn Bridge Hypothetocal

Merges

Page 19: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Merges

Page 20: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

MergesI revoke!

Page 21: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

MergesI revoke!

What a/an

______!!

Page 22: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Reliace on an offer instead of a promise – R2 § 45

“Where an offer invites an offeree to accept by rendering a performance and does not invite a promissory acceptance, an option K is created when the offeree tenders or begins or tenders a beginning of it . . .”

Page 23: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

§ 45. Option Contract Created By Part Performance Or Tender

(1) Where an offer invites an offeree to accept by rendering a performance and does not invite a promissory acceptance, an option contract is created when the offeree tenders or begins the invited performance or tenders a beginning of it.

(2) The offeror's duty of performance under any option contract so created is conditional on completion or tender of the invited performance in accordance with the terms of the offer.

Page 24: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Does the Supreme Court agree?

Page 25: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Does the Supreme Court agree?

•NO!

Page 26: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Rest. 2d, § 71: Requirement Of Exchange; Types Of Exchange

(1) To constitute consideration, a performance or a return promise must be bargained for.

(2) A performance or return promise is bargained for if it is sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise AND is given by the promisee in exchange for that promise.

Page 27: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

What performance did Wilder bargain for?

• Tender of full purchase price – NOT obtaining of financing

• How does Supreme Court characterize the obtaining of financing?

Page 28: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

What performance did Wilder bargain for?

• Tender of full purchase price – NOT obtaining of financing

• How does Supreme Court characterize the obtaining of financing?

Preparation to perform, not performance

Page 29: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Compare Ever-tite Roofing

• BILATERAL K offer, NOT unilateral

• Court said loading of trucks was part of performance, not preparation to perform

• ??

Page 30: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Equitable estoppel (reliance)

• What is Plaintiff/Ragosta’a argument here?

Page 31: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Equitable estoppel (reliance)

• What is Plaintiff/Ragosta’a argument here?

Page 32: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Court’s analysis

• Gobbledygook!

Page 33: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

R2 § 90: Reliance

• Does it apply?

• Is it consistent with Court’s treatment of “equitable estoppel” under VT law?

Page 34: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

§ 90. Promise Reasonably Inducing Action Or Forbearance

(1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.

Page 35: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Reliance and VT Law: P. 180

• “No assurance that defendant would definitely convey the property”

• “thus [plaintiffs] were assuming a risk that they would be unable to purchase the property” even after acquiring financing

Page 36: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

§ 87. Option Contract: Not often invoked!

(1) An offer is binding as an option contract if it

(a) is in writing and signed by the offeror, recites a purported consideration for the making of the offer, and proposes an exchange on fair terms within a reasonable time; or

(b) is made irrevocable by statute.

(2) An offer which the offeror should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character on the part of the offeree before acceptance and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding as an option contract to the extent necessary to avoid injustice.

Page 37: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

P. 181 – advising Earle

• Enforceability – the law

• Ethics

Page 38: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Mirror Image Rule

• Ardente v. Horan

– Compare to Fairmount Glass – why different?

– “Last shot rule”

• MPS v Dresser-Rand p. 183

Page 39: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Mailbox Rule

• Adams v. Lindell – p. 185

Page 40: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

1 tod = 28 pounds

Page 41: Options and Rejections Contracts – Prof Merges 2.15.2011.

Options and UCC

• P. 187

• UCC 2-205: the commercial “firm offer”