Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Restatement (Second) Of Contracts § 211: Unfulfilled Expectations And The Future Of Modern Standardized Consumer Contracts, Eric A. Zacks
The Restatement (Second) Of Contracts § 211: Unfulfilled Expectations And The Future Of Modern Standardized Consumer Contracts, Eric A. Zacks
William & Mary Business Law Review
By any measure, section 211 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts is a disappointment. The section purported to ensure the benefits of standardized contracts by presuming assent to all terms when a contract is signed or adopted. At the same time, section 211 made it unreasonable for drafting parties to rely on terms if the drafter knew or should have known that the other party would not have assented had the other been aware of such terms. Nevertheless, section 211 is rarely cited with respect to any standardized contract dispute, and even where cited, it rarely provides relief to the …
Kill The Monster: Promissory Estoppel As An Independent Cause Of Action, Susan Lorde Martin
Kill The Monster: Promissory Estoppel As An Independent Cause Of Action, Susan Lorde Martin
William & Mary Business Law Review
Contract rules may be dissolving into tort-type notions of unfairness and injustice. Traditionally, promissory estoppel was viewed as a substitute for consideration in situations where promisors made promises knowing that promisees would act in reliance on them, the promisees did act on the promises, and the promisors refused to do what they promised to do, to the promisees detriment. The purpose of promissory estoppel was clearly one of fairness and preventing injustice by enforcing a promise not supported by consideration in very limited circumstances. In recent cases, however, courts have been approving the use of promissory estoppel as an independent …
Protecting Brand Image Or Gaming The System? Consumer “Gag” Contracts In An Age Of Crowdsourced Ratings And Reviews, Lucille M. Ponte
Protecting Brand Image Or Gaming The System? Consumer “Gag” Contracts In An Age Of Crowdsourced Ratings And Reviews, Lucille M. Ponte
William & Mary Business Law Review
Traditionally, businesses developed and controlled brand image through company-sponsored advertising and marketing campaigns. With the rise of social media, brand communications have become more interactive, especially on crowdsourced review sites. This increased interactivity helps companies to gain valuable insight into the consumer experience and to improve their brand image and customer engagement. Businesses soon learned that positive consumer ratings and reviews often translated into enhanced brand reputation and increased revenues. Some merchants and professionals seek to burnish their brand image by paying for positive reviews while others try to silence disgruntled customers through adhesive nondisparagement clauses. These gag clauses may …