Law Commons^™

Covid-19 And Cancelled 2020 College Football Games Contracts: Force Majeure?, Drew Thornley

St. Mary's Law Journal

After COVID-19, majeure clauses accounting for the possibility of a pandemic will become the norm in college football game contracts. Indeed, some contracts are already including pandemics in their lists of force majeure-triggering events. Such language has already been added to collegiate game contracts. For example, a contract signed in May 2020 for the 2025 football game between Wisconsin and Miami (Ohio) lists as force majeure-triggering events “regional or global epidemics, pandemics, quarantines, and other similar health threats (e.g.[,] coronavirus, influenza, etc.).” Scholars explain that “the onset of the novel coronavirus pandemic warranted immediate revisitation of college football contracts.”

However, …

Equity In American And Jewish Law, Itzchak E. Kornfeld , Ph.D.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Identifying Fundamental Breach Of Articles 25 And 49 Of The Cisg: The Good Faith Duty Of Collaborative Efforts To Cure Defects - Make The Parties Draw A Line In The Sand Of Substantiality, Yasutoshi Ishida

Michigan Journal of International Law

Article 49(1) of the CISG allows buyers of international goods to avoid their sales contracts “if the failure by the seller to perform . . . amounts to a fundamental breach.” A breach is “fundamental,” as defined by CISG article 25, when it causes the buyer such detriment “as substantially to deprive him of what he is entitled to expect under the contract.” This definition is followed by the so-called “foreseeability test,” an “unless” clause that excepts the situation where “the party in breach did not foresee[,] and a reasonable person of the same kind in the same circumstances would …

Paying For What You Get—Restitution Recovery For Breach Of Contract, Jean Fleming Powers

Pace Law Review

This article begins with a brief discussion of restitution as a remedy for breach of contract under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. It then discusses the changes the Restatement of Restitution adopts and the reasons for the changes. Next, it discusses why the changes have not only failed to achieve the goal of clarifying the “prevailing confusion” related to restitution and breach of contract, but have at times created more confusion. It then explains that contract and restitution principles are not only not in tension relative to restitution for breach of contract, but in fact support such a recovery.

The Uncertainty Of Sun Printing, George M. Cohen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pluralism Applied: A Concordant Approach To Selecting Contract Rules, Samuel F. Ernst

Marquette Law Review

Contract rules can be justified by utilitarian theories (such as efficiency theory), which are concerned with promoting rules that enhance societal wealth and utility. Contract rules can also be justified by rights-based theories (such as promissory and reliance theories), which are concerned with protecting the contractual freedom and interests ofthe individual parties to the contract. Or, contract rules can be analyzed through the lenses of a host of other theories, including critical legal theory, bargain theory, and so on. Because no single, unitary theory can ever explain the complex body of laws and societal conventions surrounding contracts, the best rule …

Sovereign Immunity - The State Department’S Decision To Recognize And Allow The Claim Of Sovereign Immunity Is Binding Upon The Courts And Is Not Subject To Review Under The Administrative Procedure Act, Robin B. Gray Jr., George P. Shingler

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Celebrity Newsgathering And Privacy: The Transformation Of Breach Of Confidence In English Law, John D. Mccamus

Akron Law Review

In recent years, a series of leading cases have returned to consider these questions. The implications of these decisions for the current shape of English law relating to civil redress for privacy invasion are the subject of this article. Surprisingly, perhaps, English courts have remained steadfast in their refusal to recognize invasion of privacy as a tort and in doing so have quite explicitly declined to rely on American experience in this area. Rather, English courts have preferred to resist innovation of this kind and leave the difficult question of privacy law reform to Parliament. On a number of recent …

Contract Law—No Faith In Arkansas’S Approach To The Implied Duty Of Good Faith. Arkansas Research Medical Testing, Llc V. Osborne, 2011 Ark. 158, 2011 Wl 1423993., Kathleen Lestage

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Penn State "Consent Decree": The Ncaa's Coercive Means Don't Justify Its Laudable Ends, But Is There A Legal Remedy?, Matthew J. Mitten

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hypothetical Efficiency Is Not Grounds For Breach, Daniel M. Isaacs

West Virginia Law Review

The law does not approve of the efficient breach of contract; it merely provides or fails to provide remedies. Although there are situations where the law implies contract terms, there is no basis for an implied covenant of efficiency. Hypothetical contracts, purporting to incorporate a release where the cost of performance to the promisor exceeds its value to the promisee, cannot be used to bind people to results, even efficient ones, to which they did not agree. Where it is inefficient to demand performance, flexibility should come from the promisee who, having received in trust the power to limit the …

Benay V. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.: New Standard Needed For Determining Actual Use, Brian Casido

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Note examines Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., and the substantial-similarity standard under a California breach of an implied-in-fact contract claim and a federal copyright infringement claim. The standard used in Benay will hinder the free flow of ideas by deterring producers from accepting an author’s screenplay for fear of breaching an implied-in-fact contract. Part I of this Note summarizes the history and development of the protection of rights to creative works. Part II provides the facts and procedural history of Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. Part III analyzes and criticizes the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Benay …

Challenging Adhesion Contracts In California: A Consumer's Guide, Sierra David Sterkin

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Comment explores the California scheme for dealing with adhesion contracts, and proposes a change to the existing legal structure. Part I describes how California courts define adhesion contracts, examines the theories California courts have adopted to allow consumers to challenge adhesion contracts, and considers how jurisdictions outside California handle adhesion contracts. Part II focuses on when California courts will consider a contract adhesive and unenforceable. Part III compares California's system of dealing with adhesion contracts with systems established in jurisdictions outside California in order to determine whether there is truly any substantive difference. Part IV suggests changes to improve …

Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. V. Standard Oil Co.: Scaling The Stonewall Tort, Alisa J. Kim

Golden Gate University Law Review

In Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil CO., the California Supreme Court affirmed its position that an insurance carrier may risk tort liability for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in addition to contract damages. Moreover, Seaman's enabled the court to explore such liability in the context of an ordinary commercial contract in which "parties of roughly equal bargaining power are free to shape the contours of their agreement." The Seaman's majority deemed it unnecessary to find tort liability on the breach of the implied covenant issue. Instead the court created a more …

Wolf And Wilhelmina: Giving Entertainers A License To Breach Their Contracts, Mark Conrad

Golden Gate University Law Review

Parts I and II of this article will discuss the Wolf and Wilhelmina cases. Part III will describe the equitable contract remedies of specific performance and injunctions for breach of a personal services contract. Part IV will discuss a proposed new standard to permit the award of special damages that may provide a more effective remedy for future breaches of contract.

Breach Is For Suckers, Tess Wilkinson-Ryan, David A. Hoffman

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article presents results from three experiments offering evidence that parties see breach of contract as a form of exploitation that makes disappointed promisees into "Suckers." In psychology, being a sucker turns on a three-part definition: betrayal, inequity, and intention. We used web-based questionnaires to test the effect of each of the three factors separately. Our results support the hypothesis that when breach of contract cues an exploitation schema, people become angry, offended, and inclined to retaliate even when retaliation is costly. This theory offers a useful advance because it explains why victims of breach demand more than similarly situated …

Don't Bet On It: Casino's Contractual Duty To Stop Compulsive Gamblers From Gambling, Irina Slavina

Chicago-Kent Law Review

To address the problem of compulsive gambling, most states with commercial casinos have enacted statewide self-exclusion programs—a mechanism by which patrons petition to be physically removed from a casino if they are discovered on the premises. The casinos in the remaining states voluntarily instituted facility-based programs to assist problem gamblers in fighting their addiction.

But besides having any intended effect, these programs provided gamblers with a new ground for lawsuits—breach of contract. This note argues that neither states nor individual casinos should be liable to self-excluded patrons for breach of contract, even if they enter a casino and lose money …

Let Us Never Blame A Contract Breaker, Richard A. Posner

Michigan Law Review

Holmes famously proposed a "no fault" theory of contract law: a contract is an option to perform or pay, and a "breach" is therefore not a wrongful act, but merely triggers the duty to pay liquidated or other damages. I elaborate the Holmesian theory, arguing that fault terminology in contract law, such as "good faith," should be given pragmatic economic interpretations, rather than be conceived of in moral terms. I further argue that contract doctrines should normally be alterable only on the basis of empirical investigations.

Stipulated Damages, Super-Strict Liability, And Mitigation In Contract Law, Saul Levmore

Michigan Law Review

The remedy of expectancy damages in contract law is conventionally described as strict liability for breach. Parties sometimes stipulate damages in advance, and may agree that the damages they stipulate shall be the exclusive remedy for breach. They may do so because of their conviction that they can, even in advance, assess damages with greater accuracy than courts, and they may be wary of litigation costs associated with the postbreach determination of expectancy damages. This Article advances two claims. First, that the familiar expectation remedy is correctly understood to involve elements of fault. There is litigation over the question of …

A Comparative Fault Defense In Contract Law, Ariel Porat

Michigan Law Review

This Article calls for the recognition of a comparative fault defense in contract law. Part I sets the framework for this defense and suggests the situations in which it should apply. These situations are sorted under two headings: cases of noncooperation and cases of overreliance. Part II unfolds the main argument for recognizing the defense and recommends applying the defense only in cases where cooperation or avoidance of overreliance is low cost.

Fault In Contract Law, Eric A. Posner

Michigan Law Review

A promisor is strictly liable for breaching a contract, according to the standard account. However, a negligence-based system of contract law can be given an economic interpretation, and this Article shows that such a system is in some respects more attractive than the strict-liability system. This may explain why, as a brief discussion of cases shows, negligence ideas continue to play a role in contract decisions.

An Information Theory Of Willful Breach, Oren Bar-Gill, Omri Ben-Shahar

Michigan Law Review

Should willful breach be sanctioned more severely than inadvertent breach? Strikingly, there is sharp disagreement on this matter within American legal doctrine, in legal theory, and in comparative law. Within law-and-economics, the standard answer is "no "-breach should be subject to strict liability. Fault should not raise the magnitude of liability in the same way that no fault does not immune the breaching party from liability. In this paper, we develop an alternative law-and-economics account, which justifies supercompensatory damages for willful breach. Willful breach, we argue, reveals information about the "true nature" of the breaching party-that he is more likely …

Foreword: Fault In American Contract Law, Omri Ben-Shahar, Ariel Porat

Michigan Law Review

The basic rule of liability in tort law is fault. The basic rule of liability in contract law is no fault. This is perhaps one of the most striking divides within private law, the most important difference between the law of voluntary and nonvoluntary obligations. It is this fault line (speaking equivocally) that the present Symposium explores. Is it a real divide-two opposite branches of liability within private law-or is it merely a rhetorical myth? How can it be justified? As law-and-economics scholars, this fault/no-fault divide between contract and tort is all the more puzzling. In law and economics, legal …

The Fault That Lies Within Our Contract Law, George M. Cohen

Michigan Law Review

Scholars and courts typically describe and defend American contract law as a system of strict liability, or liability without fault. Strict liability generally means that the reason for nonperformance does not matter in determining whether a contracting party breached. Strict liability also permeates the doctrines of contract damages, under which the reason for the breach does not matter in determining the measure of damages, and the doctrines of contract formation, under which the reason for failing to contract does not matter In my Article, I take issue with the strict liability paradigm, as I have in my prior work on …

Damages For Mental Distress And Other Intangible Loss In A Commercial Context, Shannon O'Byrne

Dalhousie Law Journal

As a general rule, contracts law does not permit an award of general damages for mental distress or other intangible loss. There are several rationales for this, including: plaintiffs are to bear their disappointment or upset with mental fortitude; without the rule, courts would be awash in litigation since every breach of contract brings with it some degree of emotional distress; without the rule, plaintiffs may fabricate or exaggerate the degree of their upset; and the rule simply reflects the lack of foreseeability of such loss under Hadley v. Baxendale. Notwithstanding the general rule, courts have awarded mental distress in …

Could Fair Use Equal Breach Of Contract?: An Analysis Of Informational Web Site User Agreements And Their Restrictive Copyright Provisions, Matthew D. Walden

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Should The Doctrine Of Lost Volume Seller Be Retained? A Response To Professor Breen, Daniel W. Matthews

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Lost Volume Seller And Lost Profits Under U.C.C. § 2-708(2): A Conceptual And Linguistic Critique, John M. Breen

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bad Faith In First Party Insurance Contracts—What's Next, Paula J. Casey

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Efficiency Of Specific Performance: Toward A Unified Theory Of Contract Remedies, Thomas S. Ulen

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this essay is to begin the development of an integrated theory of contract remedies by delineating the circumstances under which courts should simply enforce a stipulated remedy clause or grant relief to the innocent party in the form of damages or specific performance. The conclusion, in brief, is that in the absence of stipulated remedies in the contract that survive scrutiny on the usual formation defenses, specific performance is more likely than any form of money damages to achieve efficiency in the exchange and breach of reciprocal promises. If specific performance is the routine remedy for breach, …