合同法大纲 - 美国法学院

_Emanuel Law OutlinesContractsChapter 1INTRODUCTIONI. MEANING OF CONTRACT A. Definition: A contract is an agreement that the law will enforce. 1. Written v. oral contracts: Although the word contract often refers to a written document, a writing is not always necessary to create a contract. An agreement may be binding on both parties even though it is oral. Some contracts, however, must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds.II. SOURCES OF CONTRACT LAW A. The UCC: Contract law is essentially common law, i.e. judge-made, not statutory. However, in every state but Louisiana, sales of goods are governed by a statute, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. 1. State enactments: A national drafting body, the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) proposes revisions to various UCC Articles from time to time. Each state legislature then makes its own decision about whether and when to adopt the proposed revision.a. 2003 Revision: The most recent NCCUSL revision of Article 2 is the 2003 Revision, which made some significant changes, especially in the area of electronic commerce. However, no state has yet adopted this revision, and it does not look as though that revision will be adopted anywhere in the next few years.b. Our text: Therefore, when this Capsule (or this book) refers to an Article 2 provision, nearly always (and unless otherwise specifically noted) the reference is to the pre-2003 version of Article, which has remained essentially unchanged since its original promulgation in 1957.2. Common-law: If the UCC is silent on a particular question, the common law of the state will control. See UCC 1-103.Chapter 2OFFER AND ACCEPTANCEI. INTENT TO CONTRACT A. Objective theory of contracts: Contract law follows the objective theory of contracts. That is, a partys intent is deemed to be what a reasonable person in the position of the other party would think that the first partys objective manifestation of intent meant. For instance, in deciding whether A intended to make an offer to B, the issue is whether As conduct reasonably indicated to one in Bs position that A was making an offer.Example: A says to B, Ill sell you my house for $1,000. If one in Bs position would reasonably have believed that A was serious, A will be held to have made an enforceable offer, even if subjectively A was only joking.B. Legal enforceability: The parties intention regarding whether a contract is to be legally enforceable will normally be effective. Thus if both parties intend and desire that their agreement not be legally enforceable, it will not be. Conversely, if both desire that it be legally enforceable, it will be even if the parties mistakenly believe that it is not.Example: Both parties would like to be bound by their oral understanding, but mistakenly believe that an oral contract cannot be enforceable. This arrangement will be enforceable, assuming that it does not fall within the Statute of Frauds. 1. Presumptions: Where the evidence is ambiguous about whether the parties intended to be bound, the court will follow these rules: (1) In a business context, the court will presume that the parties intended their agreement to be legally enforceable; (2) but in a social or domestic situation, the presumption will be that legal relations were not intended.Example: Husband promises to pay a monthly allowance to Wife, with whom he is living amicably. In the absence of evidence otherwise, this agreement will be presumed not to be intended as legally binding, since it arises in a domestic situation.C. Intent to put in writing later: If two parties agree (either orally or in a brief writing) on all points, but decide that they will subsequently put their entire agreement into a more formal written document later, the preliminary agreement may or may not be binding. In general, the parties intention controls. (Example: If the parties intend to be bound right away based on their oral agreement, they will be bound even though they expressly provide for a later formal written document.)1. Where no intent manifested: Where the evidence of intent is ambiguous, the court will generally treat a contract as existing as soon as the mutual assent is reached, even if no formal document is ever drawn up later. But for very large deals (e.g., billion dollar acquisitions), the court will probably find no intent to be bound until the formal document is signed.II. OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE GENERALLY A. Definitions:1. Offer defined: An offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, which justifies another person in understanding that his assent can conclude the bargain. In other words, an offer is something that creates a power of acceptance.2. Acceptance defined: An acceptance of an offer is a manifestation of assent to the terms thereof made by the offeree in a manner invited or required by the offer. Example: A says to B, Ill sell you my house for $100,000, if you give me a check right now for $10,000 and promise to pay the rest within 30 days. This is an offer. If B says, Here is my $10,000 check, and Ill have the balance to you next week, this is an acceptance. After the acceptance occurs, the parties have an enforceable contract (assuming that there is no requirement of a writing, as there probably would be in this situation).B. Unilateral vs. bilateral contracts: An offer may propose either a bilateral or a unilateral contract.1. Bilateral contract: A bilateral contract is a contract in which both sides make promises. (Example: A says to B, I promise to pay you $1,000 on April 15 if you promise now that you will walk across the Brooklyn Bridge on April 1. This is an offer for a bilateral contract, since A is proposing to exchange his promise for Bs promise.) 2. Unilateral contract: A unilateral contract is one which involves an exchange of the offerors promise for the offerees act. That is, in a unilateral contract the offeree does not make a promise, but instead simply acts.Example: A says to B, If you walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, I promise to pay you $1,000 as soon as you finish. A has proposed to exchange his promise for Bs act of walking across the bridge. Therefore, A has proposed a unilateral contract.III. VALIDITY OF PARTICULAR KINDS OF OFFERS A. Offer made in jest: An offer which the offeree knows or should know is made in jest is not a valid offer. Thus even if it is accepted, no contract is created.B. Preliminary negotiations: If a party who desires to contract solicits bids, this solicitation is not an offer, and cannot be accepted. Instead, it merely serves as a basis for preliminary negotiations.Example: A says, I would like to sell my house for at least $100,000. This is almost certainly a solicitation of bids, rather than an offer, so B cannot accept by saying, Heres my check for $100,000. C. Advertisements: Most advertisements appearing in newspapers, store windows, etc., are not offers to sell. This is because they do not contain sufficient words of commitment to sell. (Example: A circular stating, Mens jackets, $26 each, would not be an offer to sell jackets at that price, because it is too vague regarding quantity, duration, etc.)1. Specific terms: But if the advertisement contains specific words of commitment, especially a promise to sell a particular number of units, then it may be an offer. (Example: 100 mens jackets at $26 apiece, first come first served starting Saturday, is so specific that it probably is an offer.) 2. Words of commitment: Look for words of commitment these suggest an offer. (Example: Send three box tops plus $1.95 for your free cotton T-shirt, is an offer even though it is also an advertisement; this is because the advertiser is committing himself to take certain action in response to the consumers action.) D. Auctions: When an item is put up for auction, this is usually not an offer, but is rather a solicitation of offers (bids) from the audience. So unless the sale is expressly said to be without reserve, the auctioneer may withdraw the goods from the sale even after the start of bidding. See UCC 2-328(3).IV. THE ACCEPTANCE A. Who may accept: An offer may be accepted only by a person in whom the offeror intended to create a power of acceptance.Example: O says to A, I offer to sell you my house for $100,000. B overhears, and says, I accept. Assuming that Os offer was reasonably viewed as being limited to A, B cannot accept even though the consideration he is willing to give is what O said he wanted.B. Offeree must know of offer: An acceptance is usually valid only if the offeree knows of the offer at the time of his alleged acceptance. 1. Rewards: Thus if a reward is offered for a particular act, a person who does the act without knowing about the reward cannot claim it.C. Method of acceptance: The offeror is the master of his offer. That is, the offeror may prescribe the method by which the offer may be accepted (e.g., by telegram, by letter, by mailing a check, etc.).1. Where method not specified: If the offer does not specify the mode of acceptance, the acceptance may be given in any reasonable method.2. Acceptance of unilateral contract: An offer for a unilateral contract is accepted by full performance of the requested act.Example: A says to B, Ill pay you $1,000 if you cross the Brooklyn Bridge. This can only be accepted by As act of completely crossing the bridge. (However, the offer will be rendered temporarily irrevocable once B starts to perform, as discussed below.) 3. Offer invites either promise or performance: If the offer does not make clear whether acceptance is to occur through a promise or performance, the offeree may accept by either a promise or performance. a. Shipment of goods: For instance, if a buyer of goods places a purchase order that does not state how acceptance is to occur, the seller may accept by either promising to ship the goods, or by in fact shipping the goods. UCC 2-206(1)(b).b. Accommodation shipment: If the seller is accommodating the buyer by shipping what the seller knows and says are non-conforming goods, this does not act as an acceptance. In this accommodation shipment situation, the seller is making a counter-offer, which the buyer can then either accept or reject. If the buyer accepts, there is a contract for the quantity and type of goods actually sent by the seller, not for those originally ordered by the buyer. If the buyer rejects, he can send back the goods. In any event, seller will not be found to be in breach. UCC 2-206(1)(b).4. Notice of acceptance of unilateral contract: Where an offer looks to a unilateral contract, most courts now hold that the offeree must give notice of his acceptance after he has done the requested act. If he does not, the contract that was formed by the act is discharged.Example: A says to B, Ill pay you $1,000 if you cross the Brooklyn Bridge by April 1. B crosses the bridge on time. As soon as B crosses, a contract is formed. But if B does not notify A within a reasonable time thereafter that he has done so, As obligation will be discharged.5. Acceptance by silence: Generally, an offer cannot be accepted by silence. But there are a few exceptions:a. Reason to understand: Silence can constitute acceptance if the offeror has given the offeree reason to understand that silence will constitute acceptance, and the offeree subjectively intends to be bound.b. Benefit of services: An offeree who silently receives the benefit of services (but not goods) will be held to have accepted a contract for them if he: (1) had a reasonable opportunity to reject them; and (2) knew or should have known that the provider of the services expected to be compensated.c. Prior conduct: The prior course of dealing may make it reasonable for the offerees silence to be construed as consent. (Example: Each time in the past, Seller responds to purchase orders from Buyer either by shipping, or by saying, We dont have the item. If Seller now remains silent in the face of an order by Buyer for a particular item, Sellers silence will constitute an acceptance of the order.) d. Acceptance by dominion: Where the offeree receives goods, and keeps them, this exercise of dominion is likely to be held to be an acceptance.6. “Implied-in-fact” contracts: Situations in which the parties do not expressly exchange an offer and acceptance, but in which they indicate by their conduct their understanding that a contract is being formed, are sometimes called “implied-in-fact” contracts.a. Benefit of services: For instance, an offeree who silently receives the benefit of services will be held to have accepted a contract for them if he: (1) had a reasonable opportunity to reject them; and (2) knew or should have known that the provider of the services expected to be compensated.b. Distinction: Be sure to distinguish the true implied-in-fact contract situation (in which each party, by his conduct, knowingly leads the other to believe that they have an agreement) from a situation in which at least one party fails to take any action that would justify the other in believing that a contract is intended.i. Intra-familial transactions: For example, when one party performs small-scale services for another and the two are close relatives, if neither party expressly brings home to the other that payment is expected, the court is likely to conclude that the services were a gift rather than a commercial transaction.V. ACCEPTANCE VARYING FROM OFFER A. Common law mirror image rule: Under the common law, the offerees response operates as an acceptance only if it is the precise mirror image of the offer. If the response conflicts at all with the terms of the offer, or adds new terms, the purported acceptance is in fact a rejection and counter offer, not an acceptance.Example: A writes to B, Ill sell you my house for $100,000, closing to take place April 1. B writes back, Thats fine; lets close April 2, however. At common law, Bs response is not an acceptance because it diverges slightly from the offer, so there is no contract.B. UCC view: The UCC rejects the mirror image rule, and will often lead to a contract being formed even though the acceptance diverges from the offer. Wherever possible, the UCC tries to find a contract, so as to keep the parties from weaseling out (as they often try to do when the market changes). This entire battle of the forms is dealt with in UCC 2-207, probably the most important UCC provision for the Contracts student.1. General: At the most general level, 2-207(1) provides that any expression of acceptance or written confirmation will act as an acceptance even though it states terms that are additional to or different from those contained in the offer.Example: Buyer sends a purchase order containing a warranty. Seller responds with an acknowledgement, containing a disclaimer of warranty. There will be a contract under the UCC, even though there would not have been one at common law.2. Acceptance expressly conditional on assent to changes: An expression of acceptance does not form a contact if it is expressly made conditional on assent to.additional or different terms. 2-207(1). So if the purported acceptance contains additional or different terms from the offer, and also states something like, This acceptance of your offer is effective only if you agree to all of the terms listed on the reverse side of this acceptance form, there is no contract formed by the exchange of documents.a. Limited: Courts are reluctant to find that this section applies. Only if the second partys form makes it clear that that party is unwilling to proceed with the transaction unless the first party agrees to the second partys changes, will the clause be applied so as to prevent a contract from forming.3. Additional term in acceptance: Where the offerees response contains an additional term (i.e., a clause taking a certain position on an issue with which the offer does not deal at all), the consequences depend on whether both parties are merchants.a. At least one party not merchant: If at least one party is not a merchant, the additional term does not prevent the offerees response from giving rise to a contract, but the additional term becomes part of the contract only if the offeror explicitly assents to it.Example: Consumer sends a purchase order to Seller, which does not mention how disputes are to be resolved. Seller sends an acknowledgement form back to Consumer, which correctly recites the basic terms of the deal (price, quantity, etc.), and then says, All disputes are to be arbitrated. Even though the acknowledgement (the acceptance) differed from the purchase order by introducing the arbitration term, the acknowledgement formed a contract. However, since at least one party (Consumer) was not a merchant, this additional term will only become part of the contract if Consumer explicitly assents to that term (e.g., by initialing the arbitration clause on the acknowledgement form).b. Both merchants: But if both parties to the transaction are merchants, then the additional term automatically becomes part of the contract, as a general rule. (Example: On facts of prior example, if Buyer was a merchant, the arbitration clause would become part of the contract.) However, there are two important exceptions to this additional term becomes part of the contract rule: i. Materiality: The addition will not become part of the contract if it is one which materially alters the contract. For instance, a disclaimer of warranty will always be found to materially alter the contract, so if the seller includes such a disclaimer in his acknowledgement form after receiving the buyers purchase order, the disclaimer will not become part of the contract.ii. Objection: If the offeror objects to having the additional term become part of the contract, it will not so become.4. Acceptance silent: If an issue is handled in the first document (the offer), but not in the second (the acceptance), the acceptance will be treated as covering all terms of the offer, not just those on which the writings agree.Example: Buyers purchase order says that disputes will be arbitrated; Sellers acknowledgement is silent on the issue of arbitration. The Sellers form will be found to be an acceptance, and disputes will be arbitrated.5. Conflicting terms in documents: If an issue is covered one way in the offering document and another (conflicting) way in the acceptance, most courts apply the knock out rule. That is, the conflicting clauses knock each other out of the contract, so that neither enters the contract. Instead, a UCC gap-filler provision is used if one is relevant; otherwise, the common law controls.Example: Buyers purchase order states that disputes will be litigated in New York state court. Sellers acknowledgement form states that disputes will be arbitrated. Most courts would apply the knock out rule, whereby neither the New York courts nor arbitration clauses would take effect. Instead, the common law allowing an ordinary civil suit to be brought in any state that has jurisdiction would apply.6. Response diverges too much to be acceptance: If a purported acceptance diverges greatly from the terms of the offer, it will not serve as an acceptance at all, so no contract is formed.7. Contract by parties conduct: If the divergence referred to in the prior paragraph occurs (so that the exchange of documents does not create a contract), the parties conduct later on can still cause a contract to occur. Section 2-207(3) provides