Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
1
Chapter 9
Nature of Traditional and E-Contracts
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
9.1 Implied-in-Fact Contract
Yes. There was an implied-in-fact contract between the parties. The law allows for recovery of damages
for the breach of an implied-in-fact contract when the recipient of a valuable idea accepts and uses the
information without paying for it even though he knows that compensation is expected. Here, the Court of
Appeals found (1) that Landsberg’s disclosure of his manuscript was confidential and for the limited
9.2 Bilateral or Unilateral Contract
The contract is a bilateral contract. A contract is bilateral if the offeror’s promise is answered with the
offeree’s promise of acceptance. The court found that the agreement between Mr. Bickham and the bank
on January 23, 1974, was a bilateral agreement. Bickham agreed to do his banking in return for the bank’s
agreement to make loans at 7 1/2 percent. If Bickham had said “If you promise to loan me money at 7 1/2
9.3 Implied-in-Fact Contract
Yes, an implied-in-fact contract can result from the conduct of unmarried persons who live together. An
implied-in-fact contract arises where (1) the plaintiff provided property or services to the defendant, (2)
whether that conduct demonstrates an implied-in-fact contract. Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660, 557
P.2d 106, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815, 1976 Cal. Lexis 377 (Supreme Court of California)
9.4 Objective Theory of Contracts
2
objective intent to sell the safe and its contents and that the parties entered into a contract for the sale of
the safe and the contents of the locked compartment. Under the objective theory of contracts, a contract
was formed between the seller and the buyer of the safe. Judgment was rendered in favor of the Mitchells.
City of Everett, Washington v. Mitchell, 631 P.2d 366, 1981 Wash. Lexis 1139 (Supreme Court of
Washington)
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
9.5 Ethics Case
thereby obligating performance of the promise by Marcel Motors. Accordingly, the court ruled that
Chenard is entitled to the car. It was unethical for Marcel Motors to refuse to give the automobile to
Chenard. The car dealership’s offer to give an automobile to anyone who shot a hole-in-one was an
inducement to get golfers to sign up for the golf tournament, and a breach of that offer is unethical.
9.6 Ethics Case
No, Dr. Winkle does not receive the profit-sharing bonus orally promised to be paid to him by Dr.
Vranich. Under the equitable doctrine of quasi-contract, a court may award monetary damages to a
plaintiff for providing work or services to a defendant even though no actual contract existed between the
Accordingly the appellate court reversed the trial court’s holding that Winkle was entitled to his bonus.
Although the law favored Dr. Vranich, it was unethical for the doctor not to have performed his oral
