Misunderstanding in Restatement of Ks

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Misunderstanding in Restatement of Ks

Postby Reinhardt » Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:04 pm

I believe section 20 of the Second Restatement of Contracts is ambiguous or contradictory, but maybe someone can explain it to me.

§20. EFFECT OF MISUNDERSTANDING

(1) There is no manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange if the parties attach materially different meanings to their manifestations and
(a) neither party knows or has reason to know the meaning attached by the other; or
(b) each party knows or each party has reason to know the meaning attached by the other.

(2) The manifestations of the parties are operative in accordance with the meaning attached to them by one of the parties if
(a) that party does not know of any different meaning attached by the other, and the other knows the meaning attached by the first party; or
(b) that party has no reason to know of any different meaning attached by the other, and the other has reason to know the meaning attached by the first party.


I wrote up a nice truth table for but couldn't resolve properly the case of A(knows) & notA(has reason) & notB(knows) & B(has reason). Put into human English, this is the case if A knows the other's intention, but doesn't have reason to know it, while B doesn't know the other's intention, but does have reason to know it. My reading of the wording would indicate that there is a manifestation of mutual assent, that one party's view will control, and that both have an equal claim of this control.

User avatar
traehekat
Posts: 3195
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: Misunderstanding in Restatement of Ks

Postby traehekat » Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:13 pm

Truth tables have no place in the law. :P

Anonymous Loser
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Misunderstanding in Restatement of Ks

Postby Anonymous Loser » Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:15 pm

Edit: Never mind, I see what you are getting at. The wording of §20(1)(b) is somewhat odd, in that it doesn't capture the situation you are describing. It would make much more sense written as: "each party knows or each party has reason to know the meaning attached by the other."

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Misunderstanding in Restatement of Ks

Postby Reinhardt » Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:21 pm

This would be far more profound if I'd found it in an enforceable statute. Oh well.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Misunderstanding in Restatement of Ks

Postby Reinhardt » Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:33 pm

Yes, it seems likely that even if the Restatement is worded poorly, the courts would still rule my hypothetical as what you called a mutual non-innocent misunderstanding.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Misunderstanding in Restatement of Ks

Postby 12262010 » Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:05 pm

betasteve wrote:It's a simply misread that probably a lot of 1Ls molest. Anecdotally, the type of situation where a party would "have reason to know" would be where they were dealing in an industry that had customary practices.. Courts will often charge participants in that industry with knowledge and meaning of the custom. (Often this is only in commercial dealings, though)


FTFY




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AquafiNa, BuddyHoller, Google Feedfetcher, sam91 and 7 guests