|
 |
||
|
CONTRACTS MAY 14, 1998
PROFESSOR NEUSTADTER 3 QUESTIONS
The examination rules stated in the current student handbook govern this examination. Instructions: 1. Provide analysis supporting your conclusions. If you believe that additional facts are needed before reaching a conclusion, describe the kind of facts or give examples of facts which you would seek. If you believe that some part of a question is vague or ambiguous, identify the vagueness or ambiguity and identify the assumption you are making as to the intended meaning. 2. In determining an appropriate grade for your examination, I look for ability to identify issues, demonstrated understanding of legal principles and relationships, skill in using the statutory law we have studied, accuracy, clarity and creativity of analysis, and organization and conciseness of response. 3. There are three questions on this examination. Suggested time allocations are as follows: Question 1: 1.5 hour Question 2: 1.0 hour Question 3: 1.0 hour Points will be allocated for each question roughly in proportion to the amount of time allotted. 4. The three questions all assume a basic set of facts which is stated prior to Question 1. Each question then either adds to or alters the basic set of facts.
Basic facts Rachel and nine of her high school friends, looking forward to their graduation from high school in June, 1998, asked their families for a joint graduation party on Sunday, June 7, 1998, following graduation. They expected to invite over 500 people. Rachel's mother Tisha sought to find and rent facilities for the site of the party. Tisha set aside two days to look at the facilities on a list of several sites in the area. She stopped first at the Los Robles History Club, on April 15, 1998. She immediately liked the facilities, which included a comfortable, attractive, and large indoor room, an adjoining kitchen with stove, oven, refrigerators, and cooking utensils, and a large outdoor patio, lawn and garden with a pretty view of the adjoining hills. Tisha met with Ms. Chaton Gole, authorized representative of the History Club, and told Chaton about the date for and desired use of the facilities, including the serving of food which the parents would prepare in the kitchen. Chaton told Tisha that the price would be $2,500, prepaid, for the use of the facilities, including the kitchen, from 3:00 p.m. to midnight on June 7, 1998.
Question 1 (One hour) Tisha said she wanted to make sure her daughter liked the facilities before booking the date. Chaton said that she would pencil in Tisha's name on the History Club's master schedule to hold the date for one week, pending approval by Tisha's daughter Rachel, but that she couldn't hold the reservation any longer. As Tisha was about to leave, Chaton pulled a document entitled ``Reservation Contract" from her desk. She filled in the blanks on the document with the date, time, price, and Tisha's name, signed it for the History Club in the place provided for the History Club's signature, and handed it to Tisha saying: ``This includes the terms. It provides a place for both of our signatures at the bottom." Because Tisha was confident that Rachel would like the facilities and because Chaton had said that he would pencil in Tisha's name on the master schedule, Tisha didn't visit any of the other sites on her list. Chaton forgot to pencil in Tisha's name on the History Club's master schedule. Rachel gave her mother the go ahead (``I trust your judgment"). Tisha called back on April 17, 1998, and told Chaton that she would like to use the facilities on June 7, 1998, as previously discussed. Chaton said that she would finalize the booking in the History Club's master schedule and told Tisha to sign and return the ``Reservation Contract" within the next few days together with a check for the rental fee. After concluding this telephone conversation, Tisha read the ``Reservation Contract" for the first time but did not sign it. It was a two sided printed document with 20 numbered clauses. The last clause, which appeared immediately above the place for the signatures, read as follows: ``20. This reservation shall be complete and binding On April 18, 1998, Chaton looked at the master calendar and discovered to her dismay that on April 16, 1998, one of her co-workers had booked the History Club for 1:00-4:00 p.m. on June 7, 1998. She didn't call Tisha because she first wanted to talk with her co-worker to see if the other group would object to another date. On April 20, 1998, before Chaton had talked to her co-worker, Tisha walked into the History Club, ``Reservation Contract" and checkbook in hand. As she approached Chaton, and before Tisha could say anything, Chaton said, with embarrassment: ``I'm afraid there is a problem. We seem to have booked another group for the same date, but I'm trying to work out moving them. They won't be using the kitchen so you could prepare food even while their event is going on and you could get into the main room by 4:00 p.m. to start decorating and have your guests arrive at 5:00 p.m." After expressing her anger at this turn of events, Tisha said: ``Well, let me know by tomorrow if you can move their booking." Tisha signed the ``Reservation Contract" and left it with Chaton but didn't give Chaton a check. Tisha left. On her way home she looked at several other sites, some of which were already booked for the day she wanted. She liked the Saratoga Club and immediately booked and paid for it. It was considerably larger than the Los Robles History Club, and more expensive ($3,500), but it was the only facility that she knew of that had a similar view of the hills and was still available. She immediately called Chaton. Chaton told Tisha that Chaton had rearranged the other booking and could now accommodate Tisha. Tisha said she no longer wanted the booking because she had just paid and committed to the Saratoga Club. In July, 1998, Tisha filed suit against the Los Robles History Club seeking damages of $1,000 for breach of contract. The History Club, which had tried unsuccessfully to find another user for the afternoon and evening of June 7, 1998, cross-complained against Tisha for $2,500 for breach of contract. Who should prevail, for how much, and why?
Question 2 (One hour) Assume that there was no muddle in the bookings and that Tisha was able to hold the party as planned at the Los Robles History Club, pursuant to the ``Reservation Contract" described in Question 1. When she and other parents arrived at the History Club a few hours in advance of the party to start decorating and preparing food, they noticed the odor of fresh paint throughout the facility but most strongly in the kitchen. The kitchen had been repainted Saturday evening, June 6, 1998, by History Club volunteers. Without any alternative, the parents pushed ahead with decorating but decided that they wouldn't use the kitchen for preparing food both because the odor made some of the parents feel nauseous and because some of the other parents believed that the odor meant that chemicals in the air could somehow contaminate the food. A few parents made an emergency run to a local eatery which prepared cold sandwiches and salads (for $1,000) in lieu of the cooked chicken and vegetables which the parents had purchased for preparation in the History Club kitchen. The party proceeded but quite a few people complained of the odor and some left early because of it. The next day Tisha called Chaton to complain, citing among other things a clause in the ``Reservation Contract" which read: ``19. Facilities of History Club to be clean and presentable."
Tisha demanded all of her money back and also demanded reimbursement for the $1,000 in extra food expense. Chaton refused. Tisha filed suit in small claims court. In presenting her case to the judge, Tisha claimed to remember that Chaton had told her during their first meeting that the kitchen was scheduled to be painted by History Club volunteers on the Wednesday, June 3, 1998, and that she had responded by saying that she wouldn't want to rent the facilities if it were painted any later. In presenting the History Club's case to the judge, Chaton claims that he had told Tisha that the kitchen was probably going to be painted on Wednesday, June 3, 1998 and that Tisha did not respond at all to that information. Who should prevail, for how much, and why?
Question 3 (One hour) Tisha and the other parents of graduating seniors wanted to give each of the graduates in Rachel's group of friends a floppy disk containing, in digital form, still photographs of the graduation and the graduation party which were taken by Rachel's godfather, Phil, using his (non-digital) still camera. The day after the festivities, Phil took his rolls of film to Fox Camera which had advertised its ability to scan the negatives into digital form and save them to a floppy disk. Phil ordered ten floppy disks at a total cost of $300.00. Normally the cost is $40.00 per disk but Phil got a discount because he ordered ten. A few days later, Phil paid for and picked up the floppy disks and immediately gave them to Tisha, who reimbursed him $300.00. Tisha gave one disk to Rachel and distributed the other disks to the other families, each of whom reimbursed Tisha $30.00. Many of Rachel's graduating friends didn't get a chance to look at the disks for several weeks because they had gone on vacation. As the graduates returned from vacation and began to look at the pictures on their computer monitors and print out copies on their printers, they noticed that the faces of a few of the ten graduates were blurred almost beyond recognition in half of the photographs which showed those graduates (although not blurred on the other half of the photographs which showed those graduates). Five of the ten graduates asked Tisha if Fox Camera could redo the disks to eliminate the blurring. It took about a week for Tisha to collect the disks from the complaining graduates and get them to Phil. The evening before he was going to return the disks and the negatives to Fox Camera, vandals stole some of the contents of the glove compartment of his car, including the negatives but not including the disks. Accordingly, he could only request his money back for the five disks. Fox Camera refused. If any of the complaining graduates don't want the disk with the blurred faces, to what recourse, if any, would Phil be entitled? End of examination |
||