Pre-exam jitters, some help with Contracts?

[ltp93]

Hello everyone,

My contracts exam is about 2 weeks away, and after doing some practice problems today, there were a lot of issues that came up that I didn't even realize before.

For example:

1. Let's say a fact pattern gives a contract and lists different terms of the contract. And later in the fact pattern, you come across a fact that shows that one of the clauses was misrepresented, but the rest of the clauses are fine. What should be done with the one clause that is later proven to have been misrepresented?

I figured I'd go through the analysis of misrepresentation, but in class we've only done misrepresentation and fraud as complete avoidance of contracts. We've never had to do an exercise where one of the contract's terms is a result of misrepresentation, and the rest of the contract is fine. Any advice on how to proceed with the analysis?

2. What is the best method to tackle an analysis of breach (partial, material, total) that leads to certain damages? I was re-reading my answer and it was so poorly organized I cannot expect a professor to be able to follow it.

3. The last practice problem I did threw me off completely. It's about a minor in an employment contract. The minor signed a 4 month employment contract, for $400 a month, plus 10% commission. The minor voids the contract, but still wants to be paid.
So, the question then becomes, what should the analysis be?

Should I start off by saying, RS §14 says... to establish that the minor can void the contract, and then go into how the employer should deal with it? In class we've only dealt with cases where the minor buys something, then goes to return it. We went over how if the major party that sells to the minor did it in good faith, the major party is not be obligated to refund the entire value of the product to the minor. But is only obligated to refund the value minus whatever depreciation there is.

We have never done an employee-employer relationship where the employee is a minor and wants to void the contract.

Any advice anyone can give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[Kage3212]

We learned that misrepresentation is met when 3 factors are realized:
1.) False statement of material fact (opinion doesnt count)
2.) The person reasonably relied on that fact in forming contract
3.) Minimum level of due diligence on behalf of party claiming misrepresentation

So I would go through those three to make sure they were all met in my analysis.

We also learned that this is usually subject to rescission. But first look to the whole contract, is there a severability clause which states that if one section is determined to be unenforceable the whole thing doesnt shit the bed? If no sev. clause, then its probably a judgment call by the court. They can either strike the provision, or throw out to contract; there is no way for you to know what they would do without a sev. clause....and even a sev. clause doesnt necessarily mean the court wouldnt throw the contract out.

[ltp93]

^ Thank you.

Do you think then if there isn't a sever clause, I should just bring up the "blue-pencil" rule where a court may just cross out the agreed misrepresented term, and uphold the rest of the contract?