Simple Contracts HYPO Forum
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:23 pm
Simple Contracts HYPO
Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?
- Tiago Splitter
- Posts: 17148
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
Lots of attempts to dissuade people from attending law school on these forums, but this is definitely a new one.
- I.P. Daly
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
What do you think the damage award should be?fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?
- Extension_Cord
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
0.I.P. Daly wrote:What do you think the damage award should be?fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?
However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
The $ sign comes before the number, not after.
- Redzo
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:27 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
Nice try, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
-
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
Another contract hypo (feel free to disregard if this is hijacking op's thread)
As a broke law student, A browses through an internet site where ppl sell, among other things, their furniture directly to buyer. A sees a table that he likes. However, the seller asks for $100. A can't afford it. As sends the seller an email asking: "Is the table still available? will you take $50 for the table?" The seller responds "Yes, and I will take $50 for the table." A replies to the first seller: "Sorry, I am not interested."
The seller, meanwhile, don't know that A simultaneously contacts a second seller, and buys a table from that second seller for for $30.
The first seller is pissed. He comes to you for legal advice. What will you tell him?
As a broke law student, A browses through an internet site where ppl sell, among other things, their furniture directly to buyer. A sees a table that he likes. However, the seller asks for $100. A can't afford it. As sends the seller an email asking: "Is the table still available? will you take $50 for the table?" The seller responds "Yes, and I will take $50 for the table." A replies to the first seller: "Sorry, I am not interested."
The seller, meanwhile, don't know that A simultaneously contacts a second seller, and buys a table from that second seller for for $30.
The first seller is pissed. He comes to you for legal advice. What will you tell him?
- I.P. Daly
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
I understand that this is a completely douchey response, but:target wrote:Another contract hypo (feel free to disregard if this is hijacking op's thread)
As a broke law student, A browses through an internet site where ppl sell, among other things, their furniture directly to buyer. A sees a table that he likes. However, the seller asks for $100. A can't afford it. As sends the seller an email asking: "Is the table still available? will you take $50 for the table?" The seller responds "Yes, and I will take $50 for the table." A replies to the first seller: "Sorry, I am not interested."
The seller, meanwhile, don't know that A simultaneously contacts a second seller, and buys a table from that second seller for for $30.
The first seller is pissed. He comes to you for legal advice. What will you tell him?
What do you think his legal advice should be?
I learned an important and painful lesson this summer. If you pose a legal question to a supervising attorney, you better be prepared for the question: "what do you think the answer is?"
- AreJay711
- Posts: 3406
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
Unless there was some reliance or some reason that the car was worth more to Buyer than the $100 that it is supposedly valued at (which we would expect since he bothered to make the contract).... right?Extension_Cord wrote:0.I.P. Daly wrote:What do you think the damage award should be?fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?
However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.
- I.P. Daly
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
I agree with this.Extension_Cord wrote:
0.
However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.
A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.
Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer's breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.
This would probably be the seller's best remedy in this situation.
-
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
lol. chill dude. I am not your supervising attorney. I was bored in contract, so I made something up to make my study more interesting.I.P. Daly wrote:
I understand that this is a completely douchey response, but:
What do you think his legal advice should be?
I learned an important and painful lesson this summer. If you pose a legal question to a supervising attorney, you better be prepared for the question: "what do you think the answer is?"
-
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
UCC doesn't apply to the sale of used goods.I.P. Daly wrote:I agree with this.Extension_Cord wrote:
0.
However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.
A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.
Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer's breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.
This would probably be the seller's best remedy in this situation.
Or does it? I'm a bit rusty.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:38 am
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
UCC apply when the value of good is more than $500 , I think , in this hypo it does not apply .Or I confuse it with Statute of frauds ? However it can apply to used good
I.P. Daly wrote:I agree with this.Extension_Cord wrote:
0.
However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.
A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.
Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer's breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.
This would probably be the seller's best remedy in this situation.
- Extension_Cord
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
I think the $500 is from the Statute of Frauds.agathos wrote:UCC apply when the value of good is more than $500 , I think , in this hypo it does not apply .Or I confuse it with Statute of frauds ? However it can apply to used goodI.P. Daly wrote:I agree with this.Extension_Cord wrote:
0.
However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.
A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.
Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer's breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.
This would probably be the seller's best remedy in this situation.
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:38 am
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
thanksExtension_Cord wrote:I think the $500 is from the Statute of Frauds.agathos wrote:UCC apply when the value of good is more than $500 , I think , in this hypo it does not apply .Or I confuse it with Statute of frauds ? However it can apply to used goodI.P. Daly wrote:I agree with this.Extension_Cord wrote:
0.
However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.
A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.
Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer's breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.
This would probably be the seller's best remedy in this situation.
- I.P. Daly
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
See UCC 2-102: "...this Article applies to transactions in goods..."agathos wrote:UCC apply when the value of good is more than $500 , I think , in this hypo it does not apply .Or I confuse it with Statute of frauds ? However it can apply to used good
Right on. That was douchey. I had a nasty boss this summer and that stuff got burned into my head.target wrote:
lol. chill dude. I am not your supervising attorney. I was bored in contract, so I made something up to make my study more interesting.
I don't think the exchange in your hypos was "sufficient to show agreement, (including conduct by both parties) which recognizes the existence of such a contract. UCC 2-204.
What do you think?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
No, I don't think the buyer made an offer, therefore, he didn't enter into an agreement when the seller agrees to sell the table for $50.I.P. Daly wrote:
I don't think the exchange in your hypos was "sufficient to show agreement, (including conduct by both parties) which recognizes the existence of such a contract. UCC 2-204.
What do you think?
How do we even know if the buyer and seller in this hypo are merchants? Should we just assume that when the terms "buyer" and "seller" are used?fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?
- Extension_Cord
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
target wrote:No, I don't think the buyer made an offer, therefore, he didn't enter into an agreement when the seller agrees to sell the table for $50.I.P. Daly wrote:
I don't think the exchange in your hypos was "sufficient to show agreement, (including conduct by both parties) which recognizes the existence of such a contract. UCC 2-204.
What do you think?
How do we even know if the buyer and seller in this hypo are merchants? Should we just assume that when the terms "buyer" and "seller" are used?fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?
Doesn't matter if they were merchants under the UCC in this situation.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:41 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
Extension_Cord wrote:0.I.P. Daly wrote:What do you think the damage award should be?fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?
However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.
Don't forget. Car dealers are usually lost volume sellers. So the seller can make up the $100 for not selling the car to the buyer that breached. (or 100$)
-
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:44 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
Check the dates before posting. These people might be retired by now.TyTyLoco wrote:Extension_Cord wrote:0.I.P. Daly wrote:What do you think the damage award should be?fdr123 wrote:Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?
However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.
Don't forget. Car dealers are usually lost volume sellers. So the seller can make up the $500 for not selling the car to the buyer that breached. (or 500$)
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- pancakes3
- Posts: 6619
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
dead at the idea of a senior associate getting a notification that some 1L is correcting his UCC analysis on TLS right now.
-
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:43 pm
Re: Simple Contracts HYPO
What do you mean "valued"? If the seller sales the car for $100, then damages would be extra marketing effort, if any. If I have to run a multi year marketing process, breacher is getting hit with that.
In real world this is all contractually agreed because nobody just relies on UCC defaults, but get this is a law school exam.
In real world this is all contractually agreed because nobody just relies on UCC defaults, but get this is a law school exam.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login