CONTRACTS MNEMONICS - Pieper Bar Review
CONTRACTS MNEMONICS 1) The ingredients for a valid contract are TACO: T – Definite TERMS, express or implied A – ACCEPTANCE of terms C – CONSIDERATION O – OFFER inviting acceptance 2) An offer expires when it gets TIRED: T – Reasonable TIME after an offer is made, or after expiration date expressly stated in an offer I – Mental INCAPACITY or death of offeror or offeree R – REVOCATION of an offer communicated to an offeree before acceptance E – EXPRESS or implied rejection communicated to offeror D – DESTRUCTION of the subject matter of the offer or intervening illegality terminates an offer by operation of law 3) Options can DIE by: D – DESTRUCTION of subject matter I – Intervening ILLEGALITY E – EXPIRATION of a stated option time extinguishes the option 4) In NY, a signed writing takes the place of consideration for POP: P – PRE–EXISTING duty O – Contract OPTIONS P – PAST consideration (which must be recited in the signed writing) 5) Generally, contracting parties are free to modify a 3rd party beneficiary (3PB) K, unless, prior to receiving notice of the K modification, the 3PB got MAD: M – MANIFESTED an assent called for in the 3PB K, at the request of one of the contracting parties (i.e., accepted a K offer arising from the 3PB K) A – Commenced a breach of K ACTION against the promisor, or D – DETRIMENTALLY relied on the K 6) Contract assignments may involve the ADA: A – ASSIGNMENT of a contractual right to collect money owed under the K D – DELEGATION of the performance required under the K A – ASSUMPTION of liability for performing the K 2016 Pieper Bar Review 1
7) A gratuitous assignment becomes irrevocable, and a second assignee prevails over a prior assignee of the contract when J.P.N.C.: J – Recovers a JUDGMENT P – Gets PAID NC – Enters a NEW CONTRACT 8) Absent express language in a K prohibiting assignment, K rights are freely assignable, except those of SIR P: S – Where a STATUTE expressly prohibits the assignment of a K right (but if that claim is reduced to judgment, it is assignable) I – Where the assignment is coupled with an IMPROPER delegation of a duty under the K to a person unqualified to fulfill that duty R – Where the assignment increased the RISK to the other contracting party P – Where the services to be rendered are highly PERSONAL in nature (because that would materially alter the bargain) 9) In New York, by statute (see SIR P), you cannot assign a WASP: W – WORKER’S COMPENSATION A – ALIMONY or child support payments S – SPENDTHRIFT TRUSTS P – PERSONAL INJURY or wrongful death causes of action 10) Look at HAIL to determine whether a breach is material or immaterial: H – HARDSHIP on breaching party if total material breach is declared A – AMOUNT of benefit bestowed on non–breaching party I – Whether breach was INNOCENT L – LIKELIHOOD of full performance being achieved 11) Breach of contract defenses are I3 FU2MED & I S2IP: I – INFANCY I – INSANITY – INCOMPETENCY I – INTOXICATION F – FRAUD U – UNCONSCIONABILITY U – UNDUE INFLUENCE M – MISTAKE E – EQUITABLE DEFENSES D – DURESS I – IMPOSSIBILITY of performance S – STATUTE OF FRAUDS S – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS I – ILLEGALITY P – PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE 12) Lack of contractual capacity arises from the 3 I’s: I – INFANCY I – INTOXICATION I – Mental INFIRMITY 2016 Pieper Bar Review 2
13) SI2R M is a fraud: S – SCIENTER I – D lied with an INTENT to defraud the P I – P suffered an economic INJURY R – P justifiably RELIED on D’s misrepresentation M – D misrepresented a MATERIAL fact, which induced P to enter the K 13a)Badges of constructive fraud SHIFTS: S – SECRETLY done H – HASTILY done I – INADEQUACY of consideration F – Made to a FAMILY member or Friend T – TRANSFEROR continues to the control property S – SCIENTIFIC (knowledge) of the creditor’s claim, an inability to pay it after the transfer. 14) A unilateral mistake in calculating figures may allow the mistaken party the remedy of equity of rescission, if he calls the COPS: C – The computational mistake was COMMUNICATED to the other party before that person changed his/her position in reliance on those mistaken figures O – The mistake involved was one of ORDINARY negligence P – The mistaken party gave PROMPT notice of the mistake S – The mistake will impose SUBSTANTIAL hardship on the party if not corrected 15) The following SMART FLYS contracts must be in writing, subscribed by the party to be charged with the breach (i.e., must contain defendant’s signature): S – SURETY contracts M – MARRIAGE contracts A – ANSWER for debts discharged in bankruptcy R – REAL ESTATE contracts T – TESTAMENTARY promises (NY ONLY) F – FINDERS FEE arrangements L – LEASES longer than 1 year Y – Contracts not capable of complete performance within 1 YEAR S – UCC Article 2 SALES CONTRACTS for 500 or more 16) Use a COMB for promissory estoppel in NY: C – CHARITABLE pledges O – To avoid OUTRAGEOUSLY unconscionable results M – Oral MARRIAGE contracts B – Promises by gratuitous BAILEES to obtain insurance on bailed goods 17) There are 4 T–CUP elements for a constructive trust: T – TRANSFER of property in reliance on promise C – Existence of CONFIDENTIAL or fiduciary relationship U – UNJUST enrichment to transferee of property or to some third party, AND P – PROMISE, express or implied, to hold property for plaintiff’s benefit, which promise has been breached 2016 Pieper Bar Review 3
18) A THUG may render an illegal contract enforceable, based on: T – TYPE of illegality & extent to which the public is harmed H – HARM that forfeiture would cause if contract was declared unenforceable due to illegality; ct looks to see whether contract has been substantially performed U – UNJUST enrichment (a windfall) to party asserting illegality defense G – Relative GUILT of each party 19) The theory of impossibility frequently involves the 4 Ds: D – DEATH D – DANGER to life/ill health D – DESTRUCTION of the subject matter of the law suit D – DELAYS, temporarily causing performance to become impracticable or impossible 20) OF MICE2 permits parole evidence: O – To establish an ORAL condition precedent to legal effectiveness of contract, provided it doesn’t contradict express term(s) of the contract F – A party cannot invoke the Parole Evidence Rule to shield that party from allegations of FRAUD or Misrepresentation M – To establish MUTUAL Mistake or claim for reformation of contract I – To establish ILLEGALITY C – To establish failure of CONSIDERATION E – To EXPLAIN ambiguous or missing terms E – To show that no ENFORCEABLE agreement was ever intended 21) Contract law does not allow damages recovery for CAPS: C – To recover consequential damages, unless they were within the CONTEMPLATION OF BOTH PARTIES when the contract was executed A – Damages that party could have AVOIDED P – Damages for PAIN & suffering or emotional distress resulting from a breached contract, even if such damages were foreseeable S – SPECULATIVE damages aren’t recoverable (all damages must be proven within a reasonable certainty) 22) Generally, parties can put whatever terms they’d like into a K, except for PLUS: P – Terms that violate PUBLIC POLICY L – Terms providing for an excessive amount of LIQUIDATED DAMAGES U – Terms that are UNCONSCIONABLE S – Clauses providing that one party can seek SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE in the event of a breach (the contract does NOT have to enforce these clauses) 23) Apply a TISSUE to a covenant restricting a former employee from competing: T – TIME restriction must be reasonable (usually two years or fewer) I – INABILITY of the employee to gain work elsewhere S – The geographic SPACE/SCOPE of the restriction must be as narrow as possible (must only be to the extent necessary to protect employer’s interest) SUE – The employee services must be SPECIAL, UNIQUE, or EXTRAORDINARY 2016 Pieper Bar Review 4
SALES MNEMONICS 24) ICOP limits the Perfect Tender Rule: I – INSTALLMENT contracts C – Timely delivery was COMMERCIALLY IMPRACTIBLE by an event not contemplated by the parties. O – Delivery in good faith, OBJECTIVELY and reasonably believing the goods would be acceptable to the buyer P – PRIOR TO DELIVERY DATE set forth in the contract, conforming goods are delivered to replace the nonconforming goods 25) Additional terms will not be added to the contract when OCAN: O – The offeror OBJECTS to additional terms within a reasonable time C – The offer expressly CONDITIONS the agreement on accepting the terms in the offer as they are A – The additional terms materially ALTER the offer N – Either or both parties are NON–MERCHANTS 26) A J STRAW clause materially alters an offer if it would cause surprise or hardship to the offeror if the offeror was not made aware of its existence: J – Bestowing JURISDICTION on a particular court, or requiring offeror to consent to jurisdiction in particular state S – Shortening the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS to sue for non–conforming goods T – Limiting TORT liability or limiting a buyer’s right to sue for consequential damages R – Altering UCC rules for RISK OF LOSS A – Adding an ARBITRATION CLAUSE (unless customary to do so in the trade) W – Adding a clause negating a WARRANTY (e.g., one of merchantability or fitness) 27) Exceptions to the Statute of Frauds requirement are SWAMP: S – Contracts for SPECIALLY manufactured goods W – WAIVER A – Judicial ADMISSION of contract M – “MERCHANT MEMORANDUM” P – PART PERFORMANCE 28) If a sales contract is silent on a topic, the UCC implies the following CIDER rules: C – Seller is not obligated to extend CREDIT to the buyer I – Buyer has the right to INSPECT the seller’s tendered goods (except no right to inspect when the transaction involves a bill of lading) D – Seller’s tender of DELIVERY is implied to be at seller’s place of business, unless both parties know that the goods are located elsewhere E – Buyer and seller must EXCHANGE performance concurrently R – RISK OF LOSS is on the party in the best position to bear that risk 2016 Pieper Bar Review 5
29) SOAL–V and SORE–V affect risk of loss: SOAL V – SALE ON APPROVAL LATE VESTING (goods held by the buyer are not subject to claims of the buyer’s creditors) SORE V – SALE OR RETURN EARLY VESTING (title and ROL vest immediately in the buyer, even though the buyer has a right to rescind the K) 30) Remedies available to a seller are SPARKLE: S – STOPPING goods in transit P – Suing for the entire contract PRICE A – Demanding ASSURANCES R – RE–SELLING goods to another buyer K – KEEPING part of a breaching buyer’s deposit, never more than 500 L – Suing for LOST Profit E – EXERCISING the right to reclaim goods delivered to the insolvent buyer 31) Remedies available to a buyer are CID’S WAR: C – COVER I – INCIDENTAL & consequential damages D – DAMAGES for lost benefit of the bargain, or for the price paid S – SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE on a contract for unique goods W – Breach of WARRANTY A – ACCEPTANCE revocation R – REJECTING non–conforming goods 32) A sales contract contains M FEET warranties: M – Warranty of MERCHANTABILITY F – Warranty of FITNESS for a particular purpose E – Warranty against ENCUMBRANCES E – EXPRESS warranties T – Warranty of TITLE 33) Express warranties are SAD: S – SAMPLE or model, which is the basis of the bargain A – Written or oral AFFIRMATION of fact or promise made by the seller relating to the goods D – DESCRIPTION of the goods in advertisements, brochures, or catalogs 34) A P’s claim against a seller for a defective good can be based on one or more overlapping but different PINE theories of liability: P – Torts theory of strict PRODUCTS liability I – Contract theory for breach of IMPLIED warranty N – Torts theory of NEGLIGENCE E – Contract theory for breach of an EXPRESS warranty 2016 Pieper Bar Review 6
35) G.P.S. LAMP can use the following defenses against a breach of warranty claim: G – GOVERNMENT military contract defense P – Federal PREEMPTION S – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS L – LACK of timely notice to a seller A – ASSUMPTION of risk (can be asserted against any PINE claim) M – Unforeseen MISUSE of a product P – Lack of PRIVITY of contract 36) Strict products liability is imposed on a regular seller of a DUD product: D – DEFECTIVE, and an U – UNREASONABLY D – DANGEROUS product 37) When asserting a strict products liability claim, P must prove that a DIM dangerous defect in the product proximately caused a physical injury: D – DESIGN defect I – INADEQUATE warning M – Mistake in the MANUFACTURING process 2016 Pieper Bar Review 7
Damages The Goal: Contract law seeks to provide the non–breaching party with its Expectation Damages, which place the non–breaching party in as good a position as if the breaching party had performed its obligations under the contract. Expectation Damages are the usual form of damages awarded when a contract is breached. The General Formula: The Value of the Promised Performance MINUS The Value of what the Plaintiff Received PLUS Any Incidental and/or Consequential Damages MINUS Any Costs that Were/Could have been Avoided/Mitigated To make use of this formula, it helps to know something about each of its component parts: The “value of the promised performance” is typically just the contract price, though a fact pattern could tell you that the value of the performance was something else, for example, if the buyer was getting a good deal/discounted price. By allowing a plaintiff to recover the value of the promised performance as opposed to just the contract price, the plaintiff’s “benefit of the bargain” is preserved. The “value of what the plaintiff received” is exactly what it says: some value associated with the defendant’s performance (this value will be identified in the fact pattern, if necessary). “Incidental damages” are any “costs incurred in a reasonable effort, whether successful or not, to avoid loss, as where a party pays brokerage fees in arranging or attempting to arrange a substitute transaction.” Restatement 2d Contracts § 347, comment c. In a sale of goods contract, incidental damages are awarded to a non–breaching buyer for any reasonable expenses arising out of the breach including those incurred through cover, or any cost “reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected . . . .” UCC 2–715. A non–breaching seller can recover incidental damages for charges incurred in “stopping delivery, in the transportation, care and custody of goods after the buyer's breach, [or] in connection with return or resale of the goods” etc. UCC 2–710. “Consequential damages” are additional losses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s breach, that usually arise in the area of lost profits following the defendant’s failure to perform on time. To recover consequential damages, the plaintiff must show 1) causation (the damages were a result of the defendant’s breach), 2) the damages were foreseeable at the time the parties entered into the contract, 3) a reasonable certainty as to the amount of damages, and 4) that the damages could not have been mitigated. 2016 Pieper Bar Review 8
“Costs that were or could have been avoided or mitigated” are simply 1) costs that the plaintiff will no longer have to incur following the defendant’s breach (sometimes referred to as “costs avoided”), like any amounts that the plaintiff no longer has to pay under the breached contract, and 2) losses that the plaintiff can mitigate “by making substitute arrangements for the use of his [or her] resources that are no longer needed to perform the contract” (sometimes called “losses avoided”) Restatement 2d Contracts § 347, comment d. To avoid pitfalls, always remember that contract law prohibits the recovery of CAPS: C – CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, unless they were within the contemplation of both parties (foreseeable) when the contract was executed A – Damages that party could have AVOIDED P – Damages for PAIN & suffering or emotional distress resulting from a breached contract, even if such damages were foreseeable S – SPECULATIVE damages (all damages must be proven within a reasonable certainty. The Caveat: The formula and its component principles are a guide. Any damages formula will work well in some situations, but not work well in others. Our job is to think about concepts like placing the non–breaching party in as good a position as performance would have put her in, and not awarding damages for costs that could have been avoided, and then apply them as rationally as possible. By working through the scenarios to follow, you should gain an understanding of how the courts award damages in a range of different situations, so that you’ll be able to answer any damages questions on the bar exam. Alternate Method of Looking at Damages: Scholars have developed an alternate measure of damages (not yet embraced by the courts but tested on the Multistate Bar Exam, see e.g. OPE 3 Q98) which breaks down the plaintiff’s recovery into expectation, restitution, and reliance interests. See Joseph M. Perillo, Calamari and Perillo on Contracts 490 (6th ed. 2009). Expectation Interest the plaintiff’s expected gain under the contract (essentially lost profits) Restitution Interest benefits conferred on the defendant that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Reliance Interest the economic detriment incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the breached contract, which typically includes the restitution interest. This alternate, modern method embraces the same goal of placing the non–breaching party in as good a position as if the breaching party had performed its obligations under the contract, but uses these interests to categorize the elements of the plaintiff’s recovery. These terms are based on the traditional measures of damages (reliance and restitution). 2016 Pieper Bar Review 9
Examples: PROBLEM #1: Waste Damages for Immaterial Breach Cost of Completion (Unless Waste) When there has been a substantial performance (“HAIL”) in good faith, but a defect exists (especially one which is only incidental to the main purpose of the K), the a court will usually award the cost of completion to the non–breaching party (see Problem #2 above). However, if the cost to correct this minor deficiency is drastically large in proportion to the overall contract price, such that completion to the exact terms of the contract would constitute “economic waste,” the court will award an alternate measure of damages to protect the immaterially breaching party. This alternate measure of damages is the difference between the value of the property as constructed and the value of the property if performance had been properly completed. For example: A homeowner hired a contractor to build a home for 100,000 and the specifications required, among other things, that the pipes be “galvanized, lap welded pipe of the grade known as 'standard pipe' of Reading manufacture.” The contractor completed the house perfectly, other than that he mistakenly used nearly identical pipe manufactured, not by the Reading Manufacturing Company, but by the Cohoes Rolling Mill Company. The contractor and homeowner agreed that the contractor had substantially performed the contract and that the breach was immaterial, but the homeowner sought damages in the amount of 40,000 (the cost to complete the contract, which would require ripping–up and then refinishing large portions of the house). Here, the courts would say that replacing the Cohoes pipe with identical Reading pipe (the only difference being a stamp on the exterior of the pipe) would constitute economic waste. Therefore, the courts would award as an alternate measure of damages: the difference in value between the house with Cohoes pipe that was received, and the same house with Reading pipe that was called for in the contract. Jacobs & Young v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921); City School Dist. v. McLane Constr. Co., 85 A.D.2d 749 (3d Dep’t 1981); Essay #1, Issue 2, February 2012; Essay #1 July 1998 Exam (damages – cost of completion). However, courts will not award this alternate measure of damages just because the cost of completion is high. If the defect was not incidental to the contract, and the breaching party did not finish the contract, the cost of completion will be awarded even though the difference in value damages might be lower. For example, the owner of a 26–acre industrial site entered a contract with a demolition contractor to sell the scrap metal from its buildings and equipment for 275,000. The contract also required the demolition contractor to re–grade the property to make the property more suitable for resale. The demolition contractor removed the buildings and equipment, but failed to re–grade the property, and the owner sued for breach of contract. The owner sought the ordinary measure of damages, i.e. the cost of completion (the cost to re–grade the property), which was 110,000. The demolition contractor argued that this was waste, offering proof that the plaintiff–owner could sell the un–graded property for only 3,000 less than if the property was re–graded (difference in value damages). The court ruled that the demolition contractor owed the 110,000 cost of completion for the breach, noting “[Defendant–contractor’s] completed performance would not have involved undoing what in good faith was done improperly, but only doing what was promised and left undone.” American Standard, Inc. v. Schectman, 80 A.D.2d 318 (4th Dep’t 1981). 2016 Pieper Bar Review 10
PROBLEM #2: Consequential Damages Must Be Foreseeable A carpenter entered a 10,000 contract to renovate a homeowner’s bathroom by July 1. Based on this contract, the carpenter entered a separate contract to buy a car for 10,000, to be delivered on July 2. The car contract provided that if payment for the car was not made on July 2, the cost of the car would increase to 12,000. The carpenter renovated the homeowner’s bathroom but was not timely paid. Consequently, the carpenter could not pay for the car on July 2, and was required to pay the additional 2,000 for the car at a later date. The carpenter cannot recover the additional 2,000 from the homeowner, because the breaching party is only liable for those consequential losses that were foreseeable based on the available information at the time of contracting. PROBLEM #3: Construction Contract Where Homeowner Breaches No Recovery for costs that could have been avoided A builder agreed to build a house for 100,000. When the builder had completed 80,000 of the project, the homeowner repudiated the contract and said she would not pay the builder. The builder then completed construction of the home, incurring an additional 5,000 cost. What can the builder recover from the homeowner? Consider that the contract price was 100,000, the builder’s reliance interest was 85,000, and his expectation interest was 15,000, but we don’t award damages for “CAPS” (the mnemonic above). A) B) C) D) 100,000 95,000 80,000 85,000 It cost the builder 85,000 to construct a 100,000 house. From these figures, a court can determine that the builder would have made a profit of 15,000 (his expectancy interest). However, the builder cannot recover the 5,000 expended after the homeowner repudiated the contract, because under contract law a party who stubbornly continues to perform after the other party has repudiated cannot recover losses that could have been avoided ( 5,000). Thus, the answer is B, 95,000, which is the value of what was promised ( 100,000), less what was received ( 0), plus any consequential or incidental damages ( 0), less the 5,000 cost that could have been avoided by stopping work after the repudiation. Under the alternate, modern approach, the amount needed to make the homeowner whole would still be 95,000, consisting of an 80,000 reliance interest for costs incurred prior to the repudiation, plus the builder’s 15,000 lost profit expectancy interest. As with the explanation above, the builder cannot recover costs that could have been avoided. 2016 Pieper Bar Review 11
PROBLEM #4: Emotional Distress Arising Out of a Breached Contract A builder agreed to construct a house for a homeowner. The builder knew when the contract was made that the homeowner was in delicate health and the new house was of great importance to her. When the house was done, the homeowner inspected it while the builder waited outside. When the homeowner came out, she slammed the front door and the whole house collapsed. Can the homeowner recover for her emotional distress because of the builder’s breach of contract? No. Such damages ordinarily are not allowed in a breach of contract action. Keep in mind that there are rare exceptions to this rule, where the court determines that a severe emotional disturbance was not only foreseeable, but a likely result of a breach. The limited circumstances in which a court has awarded damages for a severe emotional disturbance arising out of a breached contract include breached contracts for the burial of a family member, where a messenger is aware of the contents of a death notification and fails to make a timely delivery resulting in a relative missing a funeral, where a person agrees to be filmed for television on condition that her face is blacked out but his face is shown, etc. John Edward Murray, Jr., Murray on Contracts, § 124 (5th ed. 2011). PROBLEM #5: Breach by Paying Party Construction Contract Where Homeowner Breaches 1(a). A builder agreed with a homeowner to build a house for 100,000, which would have generated a 10,000 profit for the builder. If the homeowner repudiated the contract before the builder began, then the builder could sue for his lost bargain of 10,000, which is the value of the performance (here, the contract price of 100,000), minus what the builder received (here, nothing, since the fact pattern gives no indication that the homeowner was paid anything), minus the cost of completion (here, the 90,000 expenditure avoided by the builder not having to complete performance). Under the alternate, modern method, the damages would be the same, but the 10,000 would categorized as the plaintiff’s expectancy interest. 1(b). If the builder had partially performed the contract, spending 60,000 on construction prior to the homeowner’s repudiation (anticipatory breach), the builder’s damages would be 70,000, i.e., the value of the performance (here, the contract price of 100,000), minus what the builder received (here, nothing, since the fact pattern gives no indication that the homeowner was paid anything), minus the cost of completion (here, the remaining 30,000 expenditure avoided by the builder not having to complete performance). Under the alternate, modern approach, the amount needed to make the builder whole would still be 70,000, consisting of a 60,000 reliance interest, plus a 10,000 expectancy interest. 1(c). If the builder had completed the contract, spending 90,000, then he would be entitled to the entire contract price. That could be measured by the value of the performance (here, the contract price of 100,000), minus what the builder received (here, nothing, since the fact pattern gives no indication that the homeowner was paid anything), minus the cost of completion (here, nothing, since the house was completed). Under the alternate, modern approach, the amount needed to make the builder whole would still be 100,000, consisting of a 90,000 reliance interest, plus a 10,000 expectancy interest. 2016 Pieper Bar Review 12
PROBLEM #6: Repudiation Prior to Performance Repudiation by Painter on Discounted Performance A painter contracted with a homeowner to paint the homeowner’s house. The value of such a paint job was 1,200, but the painter needed work and agreed to do the job for 900. Before the homeowner paid any money to the painter, the painter then repudiated the contract. 3(a). If the homeowner is then forced to hire another painter to complete the job for 1,100 (a price reflecting a 100 discount for what we’ve been told was the value of performance), the homeowner cannot recover 900 from the repudiating painter, but only the loss incurred as a result of entering a substitute contract. That is, the homeowner contracted to receive a painted house for 900. As a result of the breach, she received the painted house for 1,100. Since she is entitled to be placed in as good a position as if the first painter performed (a painted house for 900), the court will award her damages of 200 to reflect the difference between what she paid as a result of the breach ( 1,100) and the original contract price ( 900). 3(b). If after the painter’s repudiation, the homeowner decided not to paint her house, she is still entitled to damages her “lost bargain.” That is, contract law allows her to recover as if she had decided to hire another painter. The law sets the price of this substitute transaction at the market price (which the parties can establish through expert testimony). So in this situation, the homeowner would be entitled to recover the difference between the market value of the job ( 1,200) and what the homeowner would have had to pay the painter under the contract ( 900), resulting in an expectation damages claim of 300 for the homeowner’s lost bargain. Another way of looking at the same problem would be to award the homeowner the value of the performance ( 1,200), less the value of what was received ( 0), less the cost of paying the painter 900 (a cost avoided), for a total of 300. 3(c). If the painter painted the homeowner’s house defectively (the fact pattern would have to tell you the performance was worth, for example, only 700), then the homeowner’s damages in the event she did not hire someone to fix the paint job, are similar to the scenario above, 500 (the difference between the value of the properly performed paint job ( 1,200) and the value of what the homeowner received
2016 Pieper Bar Review 1 . CONTRACTS MNEMONICS . 1) The ingredients for a valid contract are TACO: T - Definite TERMS, express or implied A - ACCEPTANCE of terms C - CONSIDERATION O - OFFER inviting acceptance . 2) An offer expires when it gets TIRED: T - Reasonable TIME after an offer is made, or after expiration date expressly stated in an offer
Simplified Mnemonics for PowerPC Instructions Rotate and Shift Simplified Mnemonics 3 Rotate and Shift Simplified Mnemonics Rotate and shift instructions provide powerful, general ways to manipulate register contents, but can be
3) Movement 3 — Review the mnemonics that gave you the most trouble. 4) Finale — Go through the Question Section. 5) First Encore — Review the questions you got wrong and re-memorize the mnemonics if necessary. 6) Grand Finale — We have placed the questions themselves in the Answer Section as a convenience, so you do not need to
Za odvajače iz mrežice (Koch-Otto York): 0,07 bar . p 1,03 bar: K m s. 1 0,0930 0,0128 . p bar 0,0140 ln(p bar) (31) 1,03 bar . p 2,75 bar: K 0,11 m s. 1 (32) 2,75 bar . p 2,75 bar: 1K m s 0,1123 0,007 ln(p bar) (33) Za podatke GPSA daju sljedeću korelaciju za ovisnost o tlaku: 0 bar .
menu option. For example, to access a File command, press Alt -F. Scroll bars The use of the scroll bars is explained in "Quick Start to Windows 95". Note the Find/Jump Page buttons on the vertical scroll bar. Toolbar Menu bar Ruler bar Ruler bar Toolbar Status Bar Scroll Bar Tool Bar Scroll Bar The Document Window Title bar and document name
The Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) is developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE). This publication includes multiple-choice questions from all seven subject areas tested on the MBE. The questions are representative of the content in the MBE and are intended to familiarize candidates with MBE-style questions.
PRESSURE RATING OF PIPE AT SERVICE TEMPERATURES - BAR SIZE 23 c 32 C 38 C 43 c 48 C 54 C 60 C 15 (½”) 55 bar 43 bar 36 bar 29 bar 23 bar 17 bar 12 bar 20 ( ¾”) 47352923181410 . PIPE CLAMPS It is essential that plastic pipes be adequately supported. This will avoid sagging and
1. What is a barrister? 7 2. Eligibility to be a barrister 8 3. The New South Wales Bar exam 8 3.1 Registering for the Bar exam 8 3.2 The exam process 9 3.3 Preparing for the Bar exam 9 4. Bar Practice Course 10 4.1 Registering for the Bar Practice Course 10 4.2 Attendance during the Bar Practice Course 11 4.3 Bar Practice Course material 11 5.
2 Tomlinson, rian and Milano, Gregory Vincent and Yiğit, Alexa and Whately, Riley, The Return on Purpose: efore and during a crisis (October 21, 2020). 3 SEC.gov The Importance of Disclosure –For Investors, Markets and Our Fight Against COVID-19 Hermes Equity Ownership Services Limited 150 Cheapside, London EC2V 6ET United Kingdom 44 (0)20 7702 0888 Phone www.FederatedHermes.com . Hermes .
