Contracts §2, Fall 1996                                  Grading Form                                      Professor Kalodner

 

Question I (50 points)

Enforceable Promise?

 

HSG: Consid found in Ames bargaining for studying stated number of hours

(8 pts)

HSG: If no consid, Ames should reasonably have expected reliance in form of more study

(8 pts)

Ames: Not bargained for exchange but a gift on condition of more study

(8 pts)

Ames: Even if pms induced reliance, no justified compensable reliance damages

(8 pts)

Modification

 

HSG: If consid, no modification because no new consideration

(4 pts)

HSG: If §90, reliance up to attempted modification makes initial promise enforceable

(3 pts)

Ames: If consid, HSG is right; if §90, what is “just” when so much reliance is after

(4 pts)

reduction and law students get rewarded for hard study by the market place

(3 pts)

Remedy

 

On these facts, court would probably give expectation as only measurable damages

(3 pts)

Miscellaneous points

(5 pts)

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

Question II (50 points)

1. Playtime v. Kids Network

 

Network can argue that absence of any stated estimate makes it unenforceable

(3 pts)

Playtime will argue this is a requirements contract made enforceable by §2-306

(3 pts)

Playtime will argue that order of zero is disproportionate to norm under §2-306

(5 pts)

Network: damages can only be nonspeculative lost profits; query costs and future sales

(5 pts)

2a. Dribble v. Network at Common Law

 

Dribble will demand expectation damages of 30 remaining wks X $5000=$150,000 plus

 

his expected $5 per figure X probable sales of 1000 action figures sold per show

 

or 30 X 1000 X $5 = $150,000 for total expectation damages of $300,000

(6 pts)

Network, as to action figures, will argue speculativeness of continuing sales at this

 

initial rate

(5 pts)

Network will argue that Dribble should have mitigated by accepting Live Action offer and

 

that, at a minimum, that mitigation was worth 10 shows X $10,000 = $100,000

(5 pts)

Dribble will respond by pointing out the differences in the shows and say not the same

(5 pts)

2b. Dribble v. Network under UCC

 

Network will argue that under §2-708(1) Dribble’s damages are measured by difference

 

between contract price ($5,000 per show) and market price ($10,000) which is higher

 

therefore no damages under §2-708 or at least none for 10 shows offered by Live

(4 pts)

Dribble will argue that Kids Network breach, at the least, cost him foreseeable

 

consequential damages in termination of sale of figures worth $5 each to him

4 pts)

Miscellaneous points

(5 pts)

TOTAL

 

 

Comments: