Implied conditions and then just breaches

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
UCFundergrad
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm

Implied conditions and then just breaches

Postby UCFundergrad » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:18 am

This is going to sound ridiculous but...

I was explained that an express condition is one that you negotiate over separately such as for a house the owner might say "I want you to put in cherry oak wood" (if that wood is real) and the seller would negotiate the price and stuff over that specific wood.

An implied condition is one in which they didn't have specific negotiations but it is, implied obviously. So like having doors that people can fit through would be an implied condition or putting wiring in the house is an implied condition.

So my question is, doesn't it seem like everything that is not an express condition is an implied condition? So what is just a breach of say building a house? As opposed to forfeiture for an implied condition? Hope this isn't too confusing. And yes, I am borderline retarded.

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

Re: Implied conditions and then just breaches

Postby Renzo » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:27 am

UCFundergrad wrote:This is going to sound ridiculous but...

I was explained that an express condition is one that you negotiate over separately such as for a house the owner might say "I want you to put in cherry oak wood" (if that wood is real) and the seller would negotiate the price and stuff over that specific wood.

An implied condition is one in which they didn't have specific negotiations but it is, implied obviously. So like having doors that people can fit through would be an implied condition or putting wiring in the house is an implied condition.

So my question is, doesn't it seem like everything that is not an express condition is an implied condition? So what is just a breach of say building a house? As opposed to forfeiture for an implied condition? Hope this isn't too confusing. And yes, I am borderline retarded.


I don't think you are retarded, but I'm not sure what you are asking. If a term is in a contract, it's either express or implied. If it's not one of those, there isn't a third option, it's just not a term of the contract.

UCFundergrad
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm

Re: Implied conditions and then just breaches

Postby UCFundergrad » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:30 am

Ok so if there is a breach of a K it has to be an implied or express condition?

I've been taught there is are implied and express conditions (which maybe are also called terms?).
And then there are promises. Like a way around an implied condition is to interpret it as a promise. So I guess I'm asking what is the difference between an implied condition and a promise. It seems every promise would be an implied condition in a K.

User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: Implied conditions and then just breaches

Postby cinephile » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:58 am

UCFundergrad wrote:So I guess I'm asking what is the difference between an implied condition and a promise. It seems every promise would be an implied condition in a K.


The case we used for implied conditions was where a builder contracted with the builder owner to build some kind of factory that required a refrigeration unit. The only reason this builder would've agreed to building was if his refrigeration company was used for the refrigeration unit. It's not like they explicitly talked about it and the Defendant owner promised it, it's just the only thing that would've made sense in this situation and surely the owner knew this was the only reason the builder agreed to the project.

Anyway, you could make lots of promises that aren't conditions of the contract. Like something neither party cares too much about, something that's not material.

somethingdemure
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: Implied conditions and then just breaches

Postby somethingdemure » Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:12 am

UCFundergrad wrote:Ok so if there is a breach of a K it has to be an implied or express condition?

I've been taught there is are implied and express conditions (which maybe are also called terms?).
And then there are promises. Like a way around an implied condition is to interpret it as a promise. So I guess I'm asking what is the difference between an implied condition and a promise. It seems every promise would be an implied condition in a K.


Term (as the word is commonly used) can mean condition or promise. You're right that whether a particular term is interpreted as a condition or promise is important.

If the term turns out to be a condition (express or implied), it means that its failure to occur removes the obligation of the other party to perform. In your example, if it was an implied condition of the house K that the house have wiring, and the builders didn't put wiring, you wouldn't have to pay for the house and the builders would have to pay your expectancy damages. If it's just a promise, and not a condition, you still have to perform (pay for the house), but the builders would still have to pay damages.

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

Re: Implied conditions and then just breaches

Postby Renzo » Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Now I got it, and somethingdemure is right.

Generally, a party is still bound by a contract, even if the other party breaches, unless the breach is material; and generally, if there has been substantial performance, the breach is not material, so the non breaching party must still perform.

If, however, something is a condition (either express or implied), then strict compliance is required, not just substantial performance. The failure to meet a condition is always material, and relieves the other party of the obligation to perform.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest