DD: promise made in hospital room was gratuitous - not supported by consideration - so not enforceable

5

Paul: promise was supported by “moral” consideration RS §86 and is enforceable

5

DD: even if enforceable under §86, only to extent necessary to avoid injustice and I have performed enough; interpreting my promise as meaning forever would be disproportional under §86(2)(b)

5

DD: promise was modified by agreement after 1 year and now only binding promise is agreement made then

5

Paul: I never said yes and besides there was no consideration for this reduction in your promise - it wasn’t even a binding promise because it was illusory, resting on however you felt (“find the time to do so”)

5

Paul: even if not binding under §86, hospital promise is binding under §90 because when DD made the promise, he should have foreseen Paul’s reliance on the promise and justice requires protecting that reliance by enforcing the promise

5

DD: DD could not foresee that Paul would not be prepared to do what he was capable of doing and since DD has said he would take care of what Paul couldn’t take care of, justice does not require enforcing DD’s promise

5

DD: if my hospital promise is enforceable, remedy should be limited to reliance and there is no evidence of any reliance expenditures by Paul as of this time

5

Paul: my foregone opportunity to hire a long-term low cost handyman is a reliance expense for which I should be compensated; also my opportunity to sue DD for his liability (it was his house I was working on and his error that caused my accident)

5

Miscellaneous

5

Total Raw Points:

50

1-ABC: We have covered in accordance with UCC 2-712 by buying power supplies that would work in our computers; our purchase was made in good faith and without unreasonable delay and so we are entitled to the difference between the contract price of $100 per unit and the cover price of $200 per unit. UCC does not require identical cover just so it is reasonable and this was.

6

1-ABC: We are entitled to remedy under 2-715(2) for the consequential damages caused by PU’s breach. Those damages include at least the $4000 loss of profit on the maintenance part of the contract. If we have to pay any damages to CSI, PU also owes us that amount because it could not be avoided by cover - no power supplies were available that would have permitted on-time delivery of the computers.

6

1-PU: Not reasonable cover to purchase at twice the contract price - a decidedly different product than the one that was the subject of our contract.

6

1-PU: It was not foreseeable to us that there would be a maintenance part of this contract which involved another company providing the maintenance. Under 2-715(2), we are responsible only for foreseeable damages.

6

2-CSI: our contract with ABC is a service contract governed by common law. We are entitled to our anticipated profit on our contract with ABC to maintain XYZ’s computers; because we can handle an unlimited number of jobs, our taking on other jobs is not actual mitigation

6

2-ABC: without increasing your staff, you have a limited number of maintenance contracts you can fulfill. When you take a new job now, replacing ours, that is actual mitigation and we only need to pay you the difference between that contract and the price we were to pay you 

6

3-XYZ: we would have made a profit on the use of the computers during the week that they should have had the computers but didn’t because of XYZ’s one week late delivery; UCC 2-714 entitles us to the “loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable” so we can show how much money we would have made if we the computers had been delivered on time

6

3-ABC: the only reasonable measure might be the rental cost of computers for that week but you need to show some actual loss

6

Miscellaneous

2

Total Raw Points

50