Contracts OutlineNew York University School of Law合同概述纽约大学法学院.docVIP

Contracts OutlineNew York University School of Law合同概述纽约大学法学院.doc

  1. 1、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。。
  2. 2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  3. 3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
  4. 4、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
  5. 5、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们
  6. 6、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
  7. 7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
Contracts OutlineNew York University School of Law合同概述纽约大学法学院

Contracts Outline 0. General things to remember - Keep an eye out for the promise/condition grey area. - Keep an eye out for waiver vs. estoppel. I. The Making of Agreemnts (Contd.) A. The Effects of Adopting a Writing Mitchill v. Lath: D orally promises to remove ice house near property before sale, Ps rely on this while setting the contract price, and D refuses to remove it after Ps took possession. (3) (below) is not satisfied. (Dissent: (3) is satisfied) - The Parol Evidence Rule defines the limits of the contract to be construed. - To modify a written K via the Parol Evidence Rule, an oral agreement must be: (1) Collateral (i.e. accompanying but subordinate to the original agreement) (2) Consistent with express or implied written K provisions (an absence of reasonable harmony) (3) One not normally put in writing by parties in this situation (decided by how close K is to the supposed collateral agreement) Note: Independent collateral contracts are still possible under PER, but there must be independent consideration. - Parol Evidence Rules are often statutory. - Remember that the Parol Evidence Rule only gets that evidence in, which doesnt entail that you win the case. Hatley v. Stafford: [- Whether the contract was a complete integration (and thus whether to admit parole evidence) is determined by the judge. If the evidence is admissible, then the subsequent question based on that evidence of whether P should win on the merits should this evidence be admitted is determined the jury.] - Here court takes a broad view of factors determining whether the provision would normally have been put in writing because the parties were unsophisticated and a literal reading would have been unfair. But the normal presumption is that the parties intended K to be complete. Rest. 2nd: Parol terms inconsistent with terms supplied by a rule of law designed to fill gaps where the parties have not agreed otherwise are not barred. (Some courts will bar oral agreements in

文档评论(0)

133****9031 + 关注
实名认证
文档贡献者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档