University:
University of Pittsburgh
Course:
LCJS 1300 | Law and Politics
Academic year:

2023
Views:

223

Pages:

3
Author:

mns81

Week 1 Cases Cited ○ Sherwood v. Walker § One farmer sold another farmer a cow which both farmers believed to be sterile. When the cow turned out to be fertile, the seller was granted rescission of the contract of sale on the ground of mutual mistake. ○ Wood v. Boynton § A woman sold a small stone she had found to a jeweler for one dollar. At the time of the sale, neither party knew what type of stone it was. It turned out the diamond was worth $700, the seller sued for rescission claiming mutual mistake. § The court upheld the contract finding that since both parties knew that they were bargaining over a stone of unknown value, there was no mistake. ○ Davis & Co. v. Morgan § A laborer employed for a year at $40 a month was offered $65 per month by another company. The employer than promised to pay the employee an additional $120 at the end of the year if he stayed within the firm. At the end of the year the employer failed to pay the $120 and when the employee sued the court held that because he was already obligated to work for $40 per month for the year there was no consideration for the employer's promise and it was unenforceable. ○ Schwartzreich v. Bauman-Basch, Inc. § A clothing designer who had contracted for a year's work at $90 week was offered $115 a week by another company. When the designer informed his employer of his intention to leave, the employer offered the designer $100 per week if he would stay and the designer agreed. § The designer sued for additional compensation, the court held that since the parties had rescinded the original contract by mutual consent and entered into a new one company. When the designer informed his employer of his intention to leave, the employer offered the designer $100 per week if he would stay and the designer agreed. § The designer sued for additional compensation, the court held that since the parties had rescinded the original contract by mutual consent and entered into a new one for the higher salary the promise to pay was enforceable. ○ Hurley v. Eddingfield: ○ Establishes the rule that in the absence of an explicit contract, when there has been no actual meeting of the minds there can be no liability. ○ Cotnam v. Wisdom: ○ Establishes the rule that in the absence of an explicit content, the law will imply a contractual relationship where such is necessary to avoid injustice.

Week 1: Cases Cited

Related Documents

Recommended Documents

Details

Description

Related Documents

Struggling with your assignment and deadlines?

Free up your schedule!

Take 5 seconds to unlock