1. Pre-K Liability 2 Contracts – Prof. Merges Feb. 28, 2011

2. 3/1: Statute of Frauds Intro. and Notes on Contemporary Statutes, 257-270; C.R. Klewin, 270-77. 3/3: S o F II Richard v. Richard, 280; Note on Sales of Goods and St. Ansgar, 289-295; Notes on 2-201(3) and Estoppel, 294; Surety clauses, 297-9, Intro and Monarco, 305.

3. 1.Pre-contractual liability 2.Definiteness

4. Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata Systems

7. Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata Procedural History Facts

8. Who appealed? Why?

9. How many causes of action in the Cyberchron complaint? Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata

10. How many causes of action in the Cyberchron complaint? 1.Breach of K 2.“Quantum meruit” 3.Promissory Estoppel/Reliance Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata

11. Negotiation History

12. 1989-90: “extended negotiations” May 15, 1990 – Grumman P.O. June 2, 1990 Letter from Grumman (“insist” on perf. Under “K”) Negotiation History

13. District Court Ruling Enforceable agreement?

14. District Court Ruling Enforceable agreement?  Why not?

15. District Court Ruling Enforceable agreement?  Why not?  “two of the most essential, material and substantial terms” missing

16. District court Theory of recovery?

17. District court Theory of recovery? –Reliance

18. District court Theory of recovery? –Reliance –On what promise?

19. The key promise –Reliance: On what promise? –Grumman/Calldata’s Wilhelm, to Cyberchron’s Paul: P. 237

20. What was the district court’s “reliance period”?

21. July 15 – Sept. 26 1990 Why this period?

22. What was the district court’s “reliance period”? July 15 – Sept. 26 1990 Why this period? [From] Grumman direction to proceed “as if we have a K” [to] entering into 2 nd K with Codar Technology on Sept. 26

23. Reliance Period 7.15.90 9.26.90

24. Reliance Period 7.15.90 9.26.90 Why no reliance before 7/15?

25. Reliance standard 3 Elements in NY: p. 237: 1.Clear unambiguous promise 2.Reasonable foreseeable reliance 3.Injury to relying party  “Unconscionable” injury?

26. § 90. Promise Reasonably Inducing Action Or Forbearance (1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.

27. Reliance Period 7.15.90 9.26.90 Why no reliance after 9/26?

28. What was the enforceable promise? We will pay you for expenses in preparing the data terminal prototype? OR: we will negotiate a final agreement in good faith?

29. Channel Home Centers v. Grossman

32. Famous historical site?

34. Who was Washington’s No. 2 person at Valley Forge?

35. Alexander Hamilton

36. What was the 1 st major battle after Valley Forge?

37. Battle of Monmouth, June 19, 1778

38. What major legal figure was encamped wit Washington at Valley Forge?

41. Channel Homes v. Grossman Facts History

42. Negotiation history

43. Location tour Nov. 28, 1984 Memo Dec. 7, 1984 “To induce the Tenant to proceed with the leasing of the store, you will withdraw the store from the rental market and only negotiate [this K] to completion.”

44. District court holding

45. No K Reliance? Restitution?

46. Holding – 3d Circuit

47. “Evidence existed” to support K to negotiate in good faith Remand: Issues to consider

48. Was there actually a K? Was the offer open only for 30 days?

49. What about lost opportunities?

50. Note 1, p. 245

51. South Bend D&G Stout v. Bacardi

52. Reliance on promise not to withdraw distributor’s account Caused promisee to forego acquisition offer – led to significant damages

53. “Tribune I” and “Tribube II” Contracts Fully enforceable preliminary agreement Vs. Agreement to negotiate in good faith

54. Rennick v. O.P.T.I.O.N. Care Inc., 77 F.3d 309 (9th Cir.1996) To determine whether the agreement binds anything, the court must look to the content of the letter and to the circumstances. The agreement in Rennick contained a non-binding clause and also contained a provision requiring approval of the O.P.T.I.O.N. Board of Directors. Id. at 313. The court found no binding intent absent approval of the board of directors. However, the Rennick agreement contained express language that the parties agreed to "continue good faith discussions directed toward the creation of formal written contract." Id. at 314. Thus, a good faith obligation could be found in an otherwise nonbinding agreement where the parties included such language. Id. at 316.

55. Tribune II Ks Breach? Remedies?

56. Burlington and definiteness Terms vs. Standard for determining terms Here: fully enforceable option –Unfair to defendant?