jump to navigation

contracts archive fall 2017

August 1, 2017: Assignment for the first class on Monday 14 August:
Read the Introduction to Contracts and Uber US Terms of Use

We will need at least 2 classes to cover this material. The basic plan for the semester is to read and discuss the casebook in the casebook order. Sometimes I will provide additional materials or questions on this blog, and I will also use the blog to provide guidance on how quickly we are likely to cover the material.

Here are the Class Policies. Please read this document before the first class.

I will also be asking you to send me some information about yourselves. I have a new assistant who will begin work on August 7th, and I will post instructions on how to send your information after she begins work.

Added August 10th.

Week 1: August 14-18
By close of business (for the avoidance of doubt, this is 5.00pm eastern time) on Monday August 14 please send an email (subject line: Bradley Contracts Class) to my assistant, Caridad Dalama, at cxd748@law.miami.edu describing two facts you would like me to know about you.

In class on Monday we will begin to work with the materials I assigned above:
Introduction to Contracts and Uber US Terms of Use (and here’s a link to a pdf version of Uber US Terms of Use 2017) (I found it difficult to print the online version).

First, please focus on footnote 4 on page 2 of the Introduction. We won’t be spending much time on fraud during this semester, but I’d like to begin by thinking a bit about this legal test. If you want to sue someone for fraud you need to establish all of these elements.

After discussing fraud for a bit we will discuss the Uber case. One thing to look for when you read the judgment is the legal test the judge applies in this case.

[August 12: A couple of people have told me that they could not access the article in note 16 of the Introduction. I am sorry about this. You could try instead looking at this article on the same topic from the Chicago Tribune.]

On Wednesday we will carry on working through the Introduction and we will also focus on the Uber Terms of Use. Note that these terms are dated March 2017 after the decision in the case.

Before class on Thursday please read pages 1-29 of the Casebook. I will comment on this section briefly in class, but we will not go over these pages in detail in class at this point. For class on Thursday please read pages 31-44. When the Casebook refers to provisions of UCC Article 2 (e.g. at the top of page 43) or to the Restatement you should look at the relevant provisions (by look at I mean read carefully). Be prepared to discuss the questions on pages 43-44.

Please also read pages 45-47. Also think about this hypothetical:

Alpha, a painter, contracts to sell a painting to Beta for $10,000. The painting is to be delivered to Beta on September 30th and Alpha has hired Deltaco, a firm which specializes in fine art deliveries, to carry out the delivery for $500 (the terms of the delivery contract allow Alpha to cancel delivery on 48 hours’ notice). On September 20th Beta calls Alpha and says that the client who had been intending to buy the painting from Beta had changed her mind because she was getting divorced. Beta did not have any other clients who would be interested in buying Alpha’s painting and therefore did not want Alpha to deliver the painting. Alpha cancels the delivery contract. On September 22nd Gamma offers to pay Alpha $9,500 for the painting. If Alpha accepts Gamma’s offer what damages can Alpha obtain from Beta?

Added August 15th: 3 Fraud Hypos (we discussed the first of these on Monday, I do not propose to discuss the others in class).