Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
1LFTW
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:28 pm

Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby 1LFTW » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:05 pm

What differentiates them?

Also, about unilateral contract:

full performance or starting of performance --> acceptance? Is it different between CL v. UCC?

Thanks!

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2398
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby nealric » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:21 pm

Promissory Estoppel:

I promise to give you a contract to produce widgets. You spend considerable amount of money getting your factory ready to produce widgets. I decide I don't want the widgets any more.

There's no consideration here- no firm offer or option contract- but I have caused you economic harm due to my promise and your detrimental reliance on that promise.


Quasi Contract:

I contract you to paint my house. Half-way though painting it, you quit. Although you breached the contract by not completing performance, you may recover from me for the amount of work you actually did in quasi-contract.

Here, I'm compensating you for work you actually did for me- not what you did in preparation to perform on the contract.


As for unilateral contracts, keep in mind what constitutes acceptance is set under the terms of the contract.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby Renzo » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:28 pm

nealric wrote:Promissory Estoppel:

I promise to give you a contract to produce widgets. You spend considerable amount of money getting your factory ready to produce widgets. I decide I don't want the widgets any more.

There's no consideration here- no firm offer or option contract- but I have caused you economic harm due to my promise and your detrimental reliance on that promise.


Quasi Contract:

I contract you to paint my house. Half-way though painting it, you quit. Although you breached the contract by not completing performance, you may recover from me for the amount of work you actually did in quasi-contract.

Here, I'm compensating you for work you actually did for me- not what you did in preparation to perform on the contract.


As for unilateral contracts, keep in mind what constitutes acceptance is set under the terms of the contract.

Not quite. A quasi-contract doesn't exist, and never did, but the court makes it up and enforces it anyways.

You get hit by a car and are badly mangled. An ambulance shows up, takes you to the hospital and operate without your permission because you're unconscious. You never contracted, promised, or otherwise engaged with the doctor/hospital, but they can sue you in quasi-contract for the fair value of their services. You never had a contract (or even a promise from either party) but the court will make up a quasi-contract and enforce it.

1LFTW
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby 1LFTW » Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:10 pm

Thanks!

Source: Hornbook

The classical rule is that the offer to a unilateral contract may be revoked at any time up until the moment of complete performance because complete performance is required to accept the offer. This was an unfair approach. A second view is that a bilateral contract is formed with the beginning of performance. This is an illogical approach. The third - modern and prevailing view - is that once the offeree starts to perform, or tenders performance, the offer becomes irrevocable. (An irrevocable offer is another term for an option contract). Under this view, the offeree who has commenced or tendered performance is never obligated to complete the performance, but cannot claim the offeror's promised performance without completing performance within the time allowable. If the offeror repudiates after the beginning of performance, the offeree has a contractual cause of action because the failure to complete performance is excused by the repudiation.

User avatar
XxSpyKEx
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby XxSpyKEx » Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:06 pm

This does:

LIABILITY IN THE ABSENCE OF BARGAINED-FOR EXCHANGE (i.e. CNS): PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND RESTITUTION
Steps to go through for exam
CNS promissory estoppel restitution promissory restitution
An Offer for a Bilateral K is NOT a promise AND NO promissory estoppel (use 87(2))
-----“an offer is not a promise until you have a return consideration (acceptance) for the offer”
Important note: The promise must induce the action or forbearance (reliance)-- There must be a causal link between promise and forbearance
1) Elements of promissory estoppel
2) Promise
a) (Here must look for a clear manifestation of intent to commit to a particular course of action)
3) The promisor should reasonable expect to induce the action or forbearance (foreseeable)
a) In other words- The promisor should reasonable expect reliance
b) The specific type of reliance must be foreseeable (e.g. if have kids that you would use it to pay their college tuition)
4) The promisee reasonably acted in action or forbearance
a) In other words, The promisee reasonably relied on the promise (note: this is NOT a legal detriment [that is for CNS] but just a reliance on the promise to your detriment, such as a financial loss)
b) The reliance must come after the promise, can’t occur after or at the same time of the promise
i) Ex- After you decide to retire and when you mention the company promises pension, no reliance
ii) Ex- You are promised a pension as the company forces you to retire then you couldn’t have relied on the promise because you had no choice (must be a choice)
5) There would be injustice to not enforce to the promise
a) Remedy is limited as justice requires (this is where expectations damages may come in if the injustice is great to not enforce them).
b) (Must be a true measurable economic loss here)
c) Injustice elements
i) Reasonable reliance by the P
ii) Formality of which promise is made
iii) Definite and substantial character reliance
iv) Prevention of unjust enrichment
v) Extent of the evidentiary, cautionary, and channeling functions
vi) Other social policies
(1) (such as father not paying child support case, whole decision was based around social policy in terms of injustice to child), says a bunch of these different factors and need to pull them up and talk about them when talking about injustice
6) §90 in restatements says promissory estoppel should depend on the extent the evidentiary, channeling, and cautionary functions are met (see above)

1) Protection of promisee reliance: the doctrine of promissory estoppel
a) Promises within the family
i) An implicit promise is enough (manifested through words or conduct), it doesn’t need to be explicit.
(1) Wright v. Newman- The court held that although the ex-husband wasn’t the natural or adoptive father of his ex-wife's son, he was still liable for child support under promissory estoppel.
(a) Neither party argued promissory estoppel, but they found it on their own. Case of judicial activism because they are worried about the message it is going to send to society if they don’t make him pay (social policy was a big thing in this case).
(2) P.227- Hypo variations for wright- Note 3
(a) HYPO: Aunt says I’ll pay for all your books in law school and she goes back on it after 2 years. Do you enforce the cost of book for the whole period (3 years) or just 2 years (when she goes back on promise).
(i) Second restatement- Allows for reliance and expectation damages (so could either give just the 2 years or could allow for expectation damages for 3 years, so depends).
2) Charitable Subscription
a) Definition- Oral or written promise to do certain acts or to give real or personal property to a charity.
b) §90(2)- §90 (2)- says that a promise charitable subscription may be enforced without any reliance (on top of CNS that was already removed by promissory estoppel)
c) However only one court has adopted this.
i) It exists out of policy because most courts just allow the charitable subscriptions without reliance but do so by going around the ball to try and say there was reliance (which messes up other courts and people about promissory estoppel, this just cuts the crap and tells you how promissory estoppel is typically used in courts).
d) To enforce a charitable subscription–(not promissory estoppel)—law of charitable subscriptions in Massachusetts.)—For exam if get charitable subscription case then use 90(1) & 90(2) unless it is a Massachusetts case
i) Party must prove there was a promise to give some property to a charitable institution AND
ii) The promise was supported by consideration or reliance.
Restitution
Note: If you have a promise don’t do unjust enrichment cuz it is unjust enrichment with a promise
1) Restitution in the absence of a promise
a) Definitions
i) Express K- Contract based on words and/or writing
ii) Implied in fact K- Contract not put into promissory words but based on the conduct of the parties. They are like true K’s, require the party receiving the benefits to have “requested it” (arises from interaction between the parties, however the request may be implied—see house painting example in handout)
(1) Where a party renders services for another without expressly requesting money but under the circumstances there is an assumption that the party understood and intended that money was to be paid for the services.
(2) A K implied in fact can be enforced where the D has received nothing of value.
(3) Can sue for breach and recover for expectation costs (like with express K), and unlike Quasi K where can only recover for market value or new economic gain.
(a) Ex of implied in fact K- You are conscious, mentally alert, and capable of making a decision, but injured and if a doctor begins to treat you and you don’t refuse it, there is an implicit agreement you agreed to pay for the service.
iii) “Unjust enrichment” is a COA and restitution is the remedy
iv) Restitution- restoration to the former or original state or position.
v) Quantum meruit- The market value of services
(1) May be used in implied in fact Ks where there is no agreed upon price (the price becomes a reasonable value for services- i.e. market value), as well as used in implied in law Ks
vi) Quantum valebat- Market value of goods.
vii) Officious- objectionably aggressive in offering one's unrequested and unwanted services, help, or advice; meddlesome: an officious person.
b) Quasi K (implied in law) is NOT a contract but merely based on legal fiction to allow recover on the basis of preventing unjust enrichment
i) Unjust enrichment- Where a benefit has been conferred by a recipient and under the circumstances it would be unfair to let him retain it without payment—this allow the COA of unjust enrichment to performer of the benefit and may be remedied through restitution.
ii) IMPORTANT NOTE: ALWAYS START AT IMPLIED IN FACT K PRIOR TO TRYING QUASI K
(1) Try to avoid quasi K, why? Because you have a real K with implied in fact and can sue for breach and can recover for contractual value. Quasi K you need to show that the person got a benefit conferred and that they would be unjustly enriched if they were allow to keep it without paying for it and then you only get market value of the benefit or the increase in wealth (based on recipient’s gain as oppose to expectation losses)
c) Elements of Quasi K
i) Need benefit
ii) Need it to be unjust
(1) Ways to figure out if it is unjust—(2 main ways)
(a) One way- where provide necessaries for a person (such as food, shelter, or medical services)
(b) [1] Must be intent to charge
(i) Objective: Intent to charge is determined by whether a reasonable person in the recipients position would’ve perceived the grantor to expect compensation
1. This can be established by if there is a custom practice to pay for such services
a. [Be sure to mention intent to charge as a possibility with a on the job accident]
b. E.g. people pay for doctor services
c. e.g. a good Samaritan couldn’t recover, however a doctor would have an intent to charge, thus could recover
(ii) If it was intended to be a gift, then couldn’t recover
(c) [2] If it is forced upon you (officious intermeddler) then is NOT unjust
(i) If it is easy to bargain with someone and you don’t and you force the bargain on them, won’t get recovery under unjust enrichment
(ii) If you knew or should’ve known that the person wouldn’t want to pay for the services, then it would be officious
(iii) Ex- If someone cuts your lawn while you aren’t there and leaves you a note that that you need to pay them for mowing your lawn
1. Test to see whether officious (from text)- Economic analysis of restitution- If the transactional cost a voluntary transaction is prohibitively high, then the person may obtain a payment of what the terms would’ve have likely been if there had created them, even in the absence of an actual bargain. However, if the transactional costs are low, then it was likely done officiously and the person may not receive restitution.
a. Ex: Doctor sees a stranger laying on the street unconscious and treats him. He later demands a fee, he has a legal claim under restitution.
i. Here the cost to revive the person to discuss terms are probatively high
b. Ex: Guy stands outside your window and plays the violin and then demands a fee he has not legal claim under restitution (even if you benefited from it)
i. Here the cost to voluntarily bargain are low.
iii) If the benefit is imposed on the recipient and it may be returned it must be (otherwise the recipient must pay for it.
(1) Weighs both sides, e.g. if someone leaves a flag in your yard and just got to drive a mile to give it back, then you must, but if need to drive across country, then don’t need to give back.
iv) Recovery
(1) Recovery is based on the recipient’s gain (unlike normal K’s that focus on the grantor’s expectations losses).
(2) 2 types of recovery available
(a) [1] Market value of the services or goods- (quatum meruit or quantum valebant)
(i) This tends to be the preferred measure of recovery.
(ii) E.g.- If you house is painted and market value of painting a house your size, etc. is $300, then the painter may recover $300
(b) [2] Net economic gain- the increase in wealth by recipient
(i) Ex- The increase in value of your house may be $1000.
(3) Recovery will take many factors into account to determine whether the person was unjustly enriched and whether the grantor may recover.
(a) Ex- if you didn’t want your house painted or were going to paint it yourself because you couldn’t afford to pay something, then you wouldn’t be unjustly enriched
(i) However, if you didn’t want your house painted, but are planning on selling it soon and your house increase in value, you would be unjustly enriched and would need to pay for the enrichment.
(b) Method of recovery will be chosen on what is believed to be fair
(i) E.g. it would be unjust to charge a person that received services from a doctor under net economic gain because that would be charging him for the value of his life.
v) Elements quick summary
(1) Need benefit
(2) Need it to be unjust
(a) Ways to figure out if it is unjust
(i) Necessities
(ii) Must be intent to charge
(iii) If it is forced upon you (officious intermeddler) then is NOT unjust
(3) Recovery- recovery is based on the recipient’s gain (unlike normal K’s that focus on the grantor’s expectations losses).
(a) 2 types
(i) [1] Market value of the services or goods- (quatum meruit or quantum valebant)
(ii) [2] Net economic gain- the increase in wealth by recipient
d) Case illustrations of Quasi/implied in fact K
i) Increase in net value fits better with marriage relationship- a familial relationship, not commence arm’s length relationship.

User avatar
XxSpyKEx
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby XxSpyKEx » Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:12 pm

Just realized you had a question about unilateral Ks as well. You're killing me smalls.

b) Offer and acceptance in unilateral contract
i) Unilateral contract- Offeror makes an offer and the offeree accepts by rendering performance of the contract instead of a mere promise to perform in the future (e.g. offeror, “I’ll pay you a $100 to drive my car to Chicago,” The offeree accepts by driving the car to Chicago. In a bilateral contract the offeree would give promise to perform (promisee)). In this situation acceptance occurs as complete performance of the contract does and only then is a contract formed.
(1) Only the offeror gives a promise as consideration, the offeree gives performance as CSN.
(2) Offeror only pays once the performance is received (so offer max. protection to him)
(3) Offeree carries risks- the offeror may revoke the offer after it has started but not finished (because the offeror can retract an offer prior to it being accepted and it is not accepted until performance is completed).
(4) The reasoning for this is because the offeree may quit at anytime and decide not to finish the work so why should offeror be bound to pay until it is complete.
ii) But the offeror is bound to pay if the offeree performs and the offeree doesn’t have to do anything.
iii) Unilateral contracts are rare and the solution to section 45 is to create a bilateral contract, which will keep you, the offeror, from getting screwed. In addition, there is a preference for bilateral contracts (promise for a promise) for this very reason and if you don’t get what your guaranteed, you can sue for a breach.
iv) The offeree must give notice of his acceptance after he has done the requested act (in a situation where it wouldn’t be easy for the offeror to know) within a reasonable amount of time for it to be effective.
v) ELEMENTS of unilateral K’s
(1) Traditional rule
(a) The contract is entered into only once performance is completed. The contract is formed at the point of completion because the offeror only wants performance and not a promise and the offer may be revoked at any point until 100% of performance is complete.
(i) HYPO: If you were told “I’ll pay you $50 to walk across Brooklyn bridge,” the person may revoke the offer when you walk 99 out of 100 steps across the bridge. But you as the offeree aren’t bound and may quit walking at any point.
(ii) Petterson v. Pattberg -The P paid $780 and agreed to pay quarterly payments of $250 to pay off the rest of the D’s mortgage of over $5k. A day after paying the $780 he came to the D and attempted to pay off the rest of the mortgage in full. He raised the money through selling the property to some third party. The D refused the money stating he had already sold the property. The P sustained a loss of $780 and a contract with someone who paid the full amount of the mortgage. The offer was revoked when he said that they he sold the mortgage and can’t accept the money. This may be done without any formal notice, as is the case here. Reversed- in favor of D… In this case consideration is the full amount and can be revoked prior to performance at any point.
1. Hypo: Would it make any difference in this case if the money was mailed? The tender of payment was acceptance in this case (performance).
a. According to the majority opinion, it wouldn’t make a difference if it was mailed because they are saying that acceptance wouldn’t occur until the offeror take the money to the bank. Thus this makes the offeror the “acceptor” as well (which is idiotic) and he can prevent performance of the unilateral contract.
2. Dissenting opinion- Judge believes that this was a unilateral contract, but disagreed with acceptance and said that acceptance occurred when Pettersen came to his door and tried to perform the contract (tendering payment in this case). He believes the D prevented this payment and that the P can’t be held for not performing the contract and have it revoked when the D prevents it (this makes much more sense than the majority opinion)
(2) Section 32 of restatements
(a) If it is unclear what the offeror wants (a promise-bilateral contract OR performance-unilateral contract), an offeree may accept the offer (promise) by either making a return promise or by rendering performance (i.e. they get to choose either one)—(ambiguous offer)
(i) The exceptions to this are if it is clear that the offeror sought an act for the promise of performance and if the offeree began performance prior to making a return promise.
(ii) EX: In this Pettersen case, section 32 of restatements would have made no difference because it was clear that the owner wanted performance of the contract and not a promise.
(b) Section 62 You can “accept” by either beginning performance or promising and this binds both people
(i) If begin performing then there is a implied promise that you’ll complete the performance—Only applies if offer is ambiguous
1. Tries to balance unfairness of section 45, this way the person is still bound once they begin to perform, otherwise they could just stop at any time (this implies the promise to finish)This binds BOTH people
(ii) Does NOT cover PREPARATIONS
(3) Section 45 of restatements
(a) States that once the offeree has begun performance the offer can’t be revoked as long as the offeree completes the performance.
(i) The offeror is bound to keep offer open, but offeree isn’t bound to complete (section 62 comes in here for ambiguous situation to bind offeree [section 32])
(b) This “option” that is created doesn’t arise until actual performance has begun, merely preparing for performance does not create an option under section 45.
(i) This essentially creates an option contract w/o consideration
(ii) In the traditional rule, the offeror had all the power because the could revoke the offer right before the offeree completed the performance and this put all the risk in the offeree’s hand. ‘
(4) Cook v. Coldwell test
(a) The offeror may not revoke the offer after the offeree had rendered a substantial part of the requested performance.
(b) Policy tries to balance unfairness of binding either party (section 45 v. traditional rule, the middle, section 45—unfair to offeror, traditional rule- unfair to offeree)
(c) Cook v. Coldwell- On 3/91 D offered bonuses based on commissions earned by employees at the end of the year (assuming the employee stays with the company until the end of the year). Then on 9/91 it alleges to have revoked the contract and offered another one where instead of paying the bonuses at the end of the year they would be paid at the banquet the following March (3/92). Laiben said that an employee needed to be employee needed to be with the company to get the bonus at that time. At that time (9/91) the P had already completed a substantial portion of the offer (~95%). The P then left the company in January and did not receive her bonus. The D argued that the original offer was revoked and the second offer was made and that the first offer was not binding because the P hadn’t yet accepted it. But since the D had performed a substantial portion of the original contract before it was revoked (when it was changed in 9/1), it couldn’t be revoked, and the D is eligible for her bonus. Thus the contract was breached.
(i) Note: in the traditional offer, could revoke until it was completed, which in this case was the end of the year, and under the traditional rule she would’ve done 95% of the work but would be allowed to collect nothing (cuz didn’t stick around till March).
(ii) Hypo: If she had left in November she would get nothing.
c) Remedies for breach
i) monetary damages equivalent to the net expectations under the contract.
ii) specific performance is an option but is a exception to the norm
d) Other methods of reaching mutual assent (UCC 2-204)


I don't think the UCC has unilateral Ks... In fact, I'm pretty sure unilateral Ks just don't exist in the real world.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby Renzo » Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:52 pm

XxSpyKEx wrote:I don't think the UCC has unilateral Ks... In fact, I'm pretty sure unilateral Ks just don't exist in the real world.

Huh? Anything you pay for in full in advance is a unilateral contract.

User avatar
let/them/eat/cake
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby let/them/eat/cake » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:09 pm

why the hell was this thread started on June 25? if this is pre-1L summer gunning, shame on y'all for encouraging such behavior.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby Renzo » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:26 pm

let/them/eat/cake wrote:why the hell was this thread started on June 25? if this is pre-1L summer gunning, shame on y'all for encouraging such behavior.

Aww fuck. Shame on us is right. OP, if this is 0L gunning, you are only making things harder on yourself.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby Bildungsroman » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:32 pm

OP appears to be taking a summer contract course.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=120209&p=3073663#p3073663

User avatar
let/them/eat/cake
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby let/them/eat/cake » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:42 pm

Bildungsroman wrote:OP appears to be taking a summer contract course.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=120209&p=3073663#p3073663


true. i suppppooooose it's alrite then.

User avatar
XxSpyKEx
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby XxSpyKEx » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:01 am

Renzo wrote:
XxSpyKEx wrote:I don't think the UCC has unilateral Ks... In fact, I'm pretty sure unilateral Ks just don't exist in the real world.

Huh? Anything you pay for in full in advance is a unilateral contract.


right.... 1l... fuck i'm drunk, but yeah i kinda remember that year.

EDIT- i'm full of shit; i have no fuckin clue what you are talkin about.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2398
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby nealric » Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:04 am

Not quite. A quasi-contract doesn't exist, and never did, but the court makes it up and enforces it anywa


Well, unless Barbri is lying to me, and I've never known them to do so, a quasi-contract remedy can exist in BOTH situations where no contract was formed AND where the contract was breached.

It's important to note that a quasi contract remedy doesn't exist just because a service has been performed. If I start painting your house pink without being asked to do so, I can't collect in quasi contract for the work I did after you make me stop.

solidsnake
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby solidsnake » Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:14 am

nealric wrote:
Not quite. A quasi-contract doesn't exist, and never did, but the court makes it up and enforces it anywa


Well, unless Barbri is lying to me, and I've never known them to do so, a quasi-contract remedy can exist in BOTH situations where no contract was formed AND where the contract was breached.

It's important to note that a quasi contract remedy doesn't exist just because a service has been performed. If I start painting your house pink without being asked to do so, I can't collect in quasi contract for the work I did after you make me stop.


Yes, this is right. If the K was materially breached then that K is treated as rescinded and the other party is under no liability to perform. Therefore any recovery for the work done up until the material breach must be sought off the K on a restitution theory. In a situation where there was never any K to begin with, e.g., doctor provides life-saving medical services to someone who is passed out and can't consent, courts will imply a K in law, and doctor can seek recovery for providing those services on a quasi-contract claim. There are a couple other situations in which a restitution theory of recovery may be available, as well.

User avatar
DelDad
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:26 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby DelDad » Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:59 pm

XxSpyKEx wrote:I don't think the UCC has unilateral Ks... In fact, I'm pretty sure unilateral Ks just don't exist in the real world.

Renzo wrote:Huh? Anything you pay for in full in advance is a unilateral contract.


All a unilateral contract means is that only one person has made a promise, and that acceptance is only by full performance.

Typical unilateral contracts are rewards: A says: "I will pay $1000 to anyone returns my lost dog to me." B finds the dog and returns it. A must pay B $1000 or he breaches.

You could get one to fall under the UCC by making a contract for the sale of goods acceptable only by performance. A says: "I will sell my widget to the first person to deposit $1,000,000 in my Paypal account and emails me their shipping address, so long as it is before 5:00pm today." If B is the first person to fully perform by depositing and providing a shipping address by email by 5:00pm today, A owes him a widget.

But not all pay-in-advance contracts are unilateral; most are bilateral: "B promises to buy one widget from A. Price will be $1,000,000, payable on or before August 1. Shipment to arrive by August 15, FOB New York. Signed A and B." Unlike in a unilateral contracts, both A and B are bound and B has accepted the contract (Assuming it was A who made the offer): if B fails to pay by August 1, he breaches and A can get damages.

In the unilateral examples above, B wouldn't breach if he failed to perform because acceptance was only by performance.

irish103
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:12 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby irish103 » Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:12 am

Bumping old thread but figured this question would fall under this heading...

With respect to the inter-related terms such as quasi contract, unjust enrichment, and restitution...would the definition below be sufficient in tying them all together?

The claimant may recover in quasi contract for the market value of the goods or services conferred to prevent unjust enrichment and obtain the remedy of restitution.

Pokemon
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:58 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby Pokemon » Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:42 pm

irish103 wrote:Bumping old thread but figured this question would fall under this heading...

With respect to the inter-related terms such as quasi contract, unjust enrichment, and restitution...would the definition below be sufficient in tying them all together?

The claimant may recover in quasi contract for the market value of the goods or services conferred to prevent unjust enrichment and obtain the remedy of restitution.


Why would you want to tie them all together?

irish103
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:12 am

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby irish103 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:55 am

So I can understand how the concepts work together. We have closed book exams and it helps retaining information if I know how they all work and if they are interchangeable.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel vs. Quasi Contract

Postby stillwater » Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:19 am

irish103 wrote:So I can understand how the concepts work together. We have closed book exams and it helps retaining information if I know how they all work and if they are interchangeable.


They aren't interchangeable.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LgownaCav, ramadar and 8 guests