Neri v. Retail Marine Corp.
AFLAC, Inc. v. Williams
Wedner v. Fidelity Security Systems, Inc.
Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc.
The correct answer is the one that states both liquidated damages scenarios.
if the amount of damages was reasonably proportionate to the actual loss.
will not recover liquidated damages.
Forest will recover liquidated damages, if the amount of loss was difficult to determine; and/or if the amount of damages was reasonably proportionate to the actual loss.
Forest will recover liquidated damages, if the amount of loss was difficult to determine
"Whether the parties intended to provide for damages rather than a penalty" is correct; all of the other criteria are considered by courts in distinguishing a valid liquidated damages clause from an invalid penalty clause. See Hornbook Section 14.31.
Whether the parties intended to provide for damages rather than a penalty.
Whether the sum stipulated was expressed as a liquidated sum.
Whether the injury caused by the breach was uncertain or difficult to quantify.
Whether the sum stipulated was expressed by a liquidated sum.
Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum
The business community accepts the theory as a valid justification for willful breaches is correct. All of the other statements are accurate regarding efficient breach theory. See Hornbook section 14.36
It assumes the absence of transaction costs.
The rules of contract damages often fail to compensate for all the losses of the party injured by the breach.
The business community accepts the theory as a valid justification for willful breaches.
Damages for mental distress and the time and effort to find a substitute performance are not compensable.
AFLAC, Inc. v. Williams held that the client's freedom to end the attorney-client relationship without financial penalty overrode the attorney's rights to enforce a damages provision in the retainer agreement. All of the other statements are true.
the practice of law is not simply a commercial enterprise.
an attorney can always enforce a retainer agreement in the event of discharge.
a client has an absolute right to discharge the attorney.
the relationship between a lawyer and a client is a special one of trust.
The must be vested.
the non-breaching party must agree to their enforcement.
None of the above.
The means of enforcement must be expressly provided for in the contract.
the performance running to the third party beneficiary can be changed.
the parties to the contract are free to modify or cancel the contract.
All of the above.
they are not enforceable.
"Yes, additional agreed damages in the form of attorney's fees are enforceable, provided they are reasonable" is the best answer. See Hornbook Section 14.35
No, additional agreed damages in the form of attorney's fees are not enforceable, unless the amount of attorney's fees is difficult to determine.
Yes, additional agreed damages in the form of attorney's fees are enforceable, provided they are reasonable.
No, additional agreed damages in the form of attorney's fees are not enforceable.
Yes, additional agreed damages in the form of attorney's fees are enforceable.
can be done by assenting to the promised performance.
A, B, or C
must be done according to the terms of the contract, if the contract speaks to vesting.
can be done by detrimentally relying on the promised performance.
"A plaintiff may not join a claim for restitution with a claim for damages from breach of contract" is the only statement that is NOT CORRECT regarding restitution. The other three are accurate. See Hornbook section 15.7 and United States v. Algernon Blair, Inc.
The impact of restitution is to allow a promisee to recover the value of services he gave to the defendant irrespective of whether he would have lost money on the contract and been unable to recover in a suit on the contract.
A plaintiff may not join a claim for restitution with a claim for damages from breach of contract.
The measure of recovery for restitution is quantum meruit, the reasonable value of the performance.
Recovery is undiminished by any loss which would have been incurred by complete performance.
"The price of the unit was below market value so it would re-sell easily" is correct, and is part of the basis for a result that represents a departure from the common law (and modern majority) approach for real property.
The price of the unit was below market value so it would re-sell easily.
The units shared the same characteristics as personal property.
Damages sustained by Centex were readily measurable.
The only variance in the units was the floor level or building location.
can alter the contract in a way that does not impact the performance running to the third party beneficiary.
cannot alter the contract in a way that diminishes the performance running to the third party beneficiary.
cannot alter the contract in a way that eliminates the performance running to the third party beneficiary.
"Restitution is available for a total or partial breach of contract" is the correct answer because restitution is available for a TOTAL breach of contract only. The rest are accurate statements regarding restitution. See Hornbook section 15.3
Restitution encompasses equitable remedies for specific relief such as decrees that cancel deeds.
Restitution is available for a total or partial breach of contract.
The basic aim of restitution is to place the plaintiff in the same economic position as the plaintiff enjoyed prior to contracting.
Restitution encompasses recovery in quasi contract in which form of action the plaintiff recovers a money judgment.
Apple App Storeで表示するTopgradeアプリを選択します。