If the parties have formed an enforceable contract and no grounds exist to excuse performance, then a promisor who fails to perform breaches a contractual obligation. Recall that Restatement (Second) § 1 defined a contract as “a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy….” We turn […]
3. Performance and Breach
When contractual relations break down, parties frequently discover that they disagree both about which terms have become part of their agreement and about how to interpret those terms. We have already seen how the common law last shot rule and UCC § 2-207 determine whose terms govern after a “battle of the forms.” In this section, […]
1. Unconscionability Consider for a moment what might justify using the coercive power of the state to enforce private promises. From a moral perspective, we might think that choosing to make a promise creates a duty to perform. Imagine that Cheryl promises Albert that she will prepare his tax return in exchange for $200. The […]
We have thus far focused on the rules that determine whether the parties have made an enforceable contract. Our attention now shifts to the question of performance. What conduct will be sufficient to fulfill each party’s obligation under the contract? Are there circumstances that might excuse performance? 1. Excuse When we make or receive promises, […]
Page 741 229 A.2d 741 425 Pa. 430 Mahlon BOLLINGER and Vinetta C. Bollinger v. CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA QUARRY STRIPPING AND CONSTRUCTION CO., Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. May 24, 1967. Edward C. First, Jr., Harrisburg, John E. Cotsack, Hazleton, Elaine M. Kalenevitch, Harrisburg, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, for appellant. […]
Page 609 601 F.2d 609 26 UCC Rep.Serv. 281 James BLOOR, as Reorganization Trustee of Balco Properties Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. FALSTAFF BREWING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. Nos. 555, 558, Dockets 78-7451, 78-7465. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued March 28, 1979. Decided May 15, 1979. […]
Page 123 69 N.J. 123 351 A.2d 349 BAK-A-LUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a New Jersey Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. ALCOA BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant-Respondent and Cross-Appellant. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued Oct. 20, 1975. Decided Jan. 28, 1976. [351 A.2d 350] Page 126 Sheldon A. […]