Simple Contracts HYPO

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
fdr123
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:23 pm

Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby fdr123 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:34 pm

Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?

fdr123
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:23 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby fdr123 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:47 pm

???

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15495
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby Tiago Splitter » Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:05 am

Lots of attempts to dissuade people from attending law school on these forums, but this is definitely a new one.

User avatar
I.P. Daly
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby I.P. Daly » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:42 am

fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?


What do you think the damage award should be?

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby Extension_Cord » Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:45 am

I.P. Daly wrote:
fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?


What do you think the damage award should be?


0.

However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.

goodolgil
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby goodolgil » Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:28 pm

The $ sign comes before the number, not after.

User avatar
Redzo
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby Redzo » Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:38 pm

Nice try, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

target
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby target » Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:36 pm

Another contract hypo (feel free to disregard if this is hijacking op's thread)

As a broke law student, A browses through an internet site where ppl sell, among other things, their furniture directly to buyer. A sees a table that he likes. However, the seller asks for $100. A can't afford it. As sends the seller an email asking: "Is the table still available? will you take $50 for the table?" The seller responds "Yes, and I will take $50 for the table." A replies to the first seller: "Sorry, I am not interested."

The seller, meanwhile, don't know that A simultaneously contacts a second seller, and buys a table from that second seller for for $30.

The first seller is pissed. He comes to you for legal advice. What will you tell him?

User avatar
I.P. Daly
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby I.P. Daly » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:38 pm

target wrote:Another contract hypo (feel free to disregard if this is hijacking op's thread)

As a broke law student, A browses through an internet site where ppl sell, among other things, their furniture directly to buyer. A sees a table that he likes. However, the seller asks for $100. A can't afford it. As sends the seller an email asking: "Is the table still available? will you take $50 for the table?" The seller responds "Yes, and I will take $50 for the table." A replies to the first seller: "Sorry, I am not interested."

The seller, meanwhile, don't know that A simultaneously contacts a second seller, and buys a table from that second seller for for $30.

The first seller is pissed. He comes to you for legal advice. What will you tell him?


I understand that this is a completely douchey response, but:

What do you think his legal advice should be?

I learned an important and painful lesson this summer. If you pose a legal question to a supervising attorney, you better be prepared for the question: "what do you think the answer is?"

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby AreJay711 » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:54 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
I.P. Daly wrote:
fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?


What do you think the damage award should be?


0.

However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.


Unless there was some reliance or some reason that the car was worth more to Buyer than the $100 that it is supposedly valued at (which we would expect since he bothered to make the contract).... right?

User avatar
I.P. Daly
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby I.P. Daly » Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:14 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
0.

However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.


I agree with this.

A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.

Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer's breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.

This would probably be the seller's best remedy in this situation.

target
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby target » Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:54 pm

I.P. Daly wrote:
I understand that this is a completely douchey response, but:

What do you think his legal advice should be?

I learned an important and painful lesson this summer. If you pose a legal question to a supervising attorney, you better be prepared for the question: "what do you think the answer is?"


lol. chill dude. I am not your supervising attorney. I was bored in contract, so I made something up to make my study more interesting.

goodolgil
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby goodolgil » Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:42 pm

I.P. Daly wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:
0.

However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.


I agree with this.

A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.

Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer's breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.

This would probably be the seller's best remedy in this situation.


UCC doesn't apply to the sale of used goods.

Or does it? I'm a bit rusty.

agathos
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:38 am

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby agathos » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:19 pm

UCC apply when the value of good is more than $500 , I think , in this hypo it does not apply .Or I confuse it with Statute of frauds ? However it can apply to used good
I.P. Daly wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:
0.

However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.


I agree with this.

A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.

Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer's breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.

This would probably be the seller's best remedy in this situation.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby Extension_Cord » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:29 pm

agathos wrote:UCC apply when the value of good is more than $500 , I think , in this hypo it does not apply .Or I confuse it with Statute of frauds ? However it can apply to used good
I.P. Daly wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:
0.

However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.


I agree with this.

A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.

Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer's breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.

This would probably be the seller's best remedy in this situation.


I think the $500 is from the Statute of Frauds.

agathos
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:38 am

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby agathos » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:34 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
agathos wrote:UCC apply when the value of good is more than $500 , I think , in this hypo it does not apply .Or I confuse it with Statute of frauds ? However it can apply to used good
I.P. Daly wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:
0.

However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.


I agree with this.

A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.

Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer's breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.

This would probably be the seller's best remedy in this situation.


I think the $500 is from the Statute of Frauds.


thanks

User avatar
I.P. Daly
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby I.P. Daly » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:35 pm

agathos wrote:UCC apply when the value of good is more than $500 , I think , in this hypo it does not apply .Or I confuse it with Statute of frauds ? However it can apply to used good


See UCC 2-102: "...this Article applies to transactions in goods..."

target wrote:
lol. chill dude. I am not your supervising attorney. I was bored in contract, so I made something up to make my study more interesting.


Right on. That was douchey. I had a nasty boss this summer and that stuff got burned into my head.

I don't think the exchange in your hypos was "sufficient to show agreement, (including conduct by both parties) which recognizes the existence of such a contract. UCC 2-204.

What do you think?

target
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby target » Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:05 pm

I.P. Daly wrote:
I don't think the exchange in your hypos was "sufficient to show agreement, (including conduct by both parties) which recognizes the existence of such a contract. UCC 2-204.

What do you think?


No, I don't think the buyer made an offer, therefore, he didn't enter into an agreement when the seller agrees to sell the table for $50.

fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?


How do we even know if the buyer and seller in this hypo are merchants? Should we just assume that when the terms "buyer" and "seller" are used?

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Simple Contracts HYPO

Postby Extension_Cord » Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:00 pm

target wrote:
I.P. Daly wrote:
I don't think the exchange in your hypos was "sufficient to show agreement, (including conduct by both parties) which recognizes the existence of such a contract. UCC 2-204.

What do you think?


No, I don't think the buyer made an offer, therefore, he didn't enter into an agreement when the seller agrees to sell the table for $50.

fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?


How do we even know if the buyer and seller in this hypo are merchants? Should we just assume that when the terms "buyer" and "seller" are used?



Doesn't matter if they were merchants under the UCC in this situation.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], LawHammer and 11 guests