Nathonas checklist (SAMI DI FUMA?)
We went over last term
Crimes, torts, gambling, obstruct justice, etc.
Discuss finer points of illegality in barbri
Generally under age of majority. Voidable by infant, but binding on adult.
Revisit Lucy v. Zehmer
When language has at least two possible meanings
Subjective intent of parties
Where both parties are mistaken about existing present facts that are a basic assumption of the contract, the mistake is material, and the party asserting the defense did not assume the risk.
Unilateral mistake generally does not prevent formation unless the nonmistaken party knew or had reason to know of the mistake.
Where a party misrepresents material facts with intent to deceive, and the innocent party reasonably relies on the misrepresentation. The contract is voidable.
Where a party misrepresents material facts, the innocent party reasonably relies on the misrepresentation, and the innocent party would not have entered the contract but for the misrepresentation. The contract is voidable.
Terms that so unfair and one sided, usually because of unequal bargaining power, that the court will refuse to enforce the term of the entire contract.
A form of unconscionability where a buyer is in a position where they can only take it or leave it. Courts only find this where a buyer cannot get a necessity from any seller without agreeing to the same terms.
Considered a form of duress, undue influence occurs when a susceptible party is subject to excessive pressure by another party that they have a confidential relationship with (e.g. attorney, adult children taking care of elderly, etc
Strategies, Cases, then Questions and Answers.
Treat formation as a prima facie complaint filed by the plaintiff.
Treat defenses like a respondent would in their answer.
Think through what each party is trying to achieve.
A strategy for race-horse essays only
A strategy for when you spot an issue that is collateral, but not immaterial, to the actual facts in the essay, or when you're convinced it doesn't apply.
Example: You see facts for ordinary economic duress. Don't skip it, spot it, put the rule and say generally courts won't find it.
A strategy for when you see two alternatives, and can't decide which. Write both alternatives and say if the court finds this, then…, if the court finds the other alternative, then… For certain issues you might need to hedge throughout the essay we more than one dependent issue.
An example would be if you decide for certain one party is not a merchant, but the rest of the facts raise merchant issues.
Another example is if you see something you think is a showstopper (e.g. no offer, valid defense, etc.) You would write that you think it breaks things, but the say, for example, "however if the court finds there was an offer, then…" and keep writing the essay.
Only do this if there's something that would be in dispute based on the facts. You don't need to (and shouldn't) argue both sides for issues that aren't in contention between the parties.
How would each party want a finder of fact to see the facts from their perspective?
Pettit v. Liston
Ortelere v. Teachers’ Retirement Board
Cousineau v. Walker
Bentley v. Slavik