Hamer v. Sidway

An uncle promises his nephew $5,000 if he refrains from drinking, smoking, swearing, and gambling until age 21. The nephew complies. The issue is whether giving up legal rights constitutes valid consideration even if the promisor receives no economic benefit. — CONSIDERATION & FORMATION

Scott v. Moragues Lumber

A ship owner promises to charter a specific vessel if he purchases it. He buys the vessel but then refuses to charter it. The issue is whether a conditional promise becomes binding once the condition occurs. — CONDITIONAL VS ILLUSORY PROMISES

Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon

A fashion designer grants exclusive marketing rights in exchange for shared profits but later makes independent deals. The issue is whether exclusivity implies a duty of reasonable efforts sufficient to constitute consideration. — IMPLIED DUTIES & MUTUALITY

Miami Coca-Cola v. Orange Crush

An exclusive bottling agreement does not require the distributor to buy any minimum quantity of syrup. The distributor stops buying and sells a competitor’s product. The issue is whether the agreement lacked mutuality and was illusory. — MUTUALITY / ILLUSORY PROMISES

Harris v. Time

A promotional mailing claims a recipient has won a free watch if he opens the envelope. After opening it, additional conditions appear. The issue is whether an advertisement constitutes a definite offer capable of acceptance. — OFFER VS ADVERTISEMENT

Denney v. Reppert

A reward is offered after a bank robbery. Bank employees and on-duty officers claim it after participating in the arrest. The issue is whether performing a pre-existing legal duty can qualify as consideration. — PRE-EXISTING DUTY RULE

Lingenfelder v. Wainwright

An architect already under contract refuses to continue work unless promised additional compensation. The employer agrees under pressure. The issue is whether performing an existing contractual duty can serve as new consideration. — PRE-EXISTING CONTRACTUAL DUTY

Adams v. Lindsell

A letter offering to sell wool is misdirected and arrives late. The buyer posts acceptance immediately. Before receiving it, the seller sells to someone else. The issue is whether acceptance is effective upon posting. — MAILBOX RULE

Dickinson v. Dodds

A written offer to sell property states it will remain open until Friday. Before acceptance, the buyer learns from a third party that it has been sold. The issue is whether a promise to keep an offer open is binding without consideration and whether knowledge of sale counts as revocation. — REVOCATION OF OFFER / OPTION CONTRACTS

Walford v. Miles

Parties agree to negotiate exclusively in good faith for the sale of a business. Before final contract, the seller withdraws and sells to another. The issue is whether an agreement to negotiate in good faith is enforceable. — GOOD FAITH IN NEGOTIATIONS (UK)

William Lacey (Hounslow), Ltd. v. Davis

A builder prepares detailed estimates and plans during negotiations at the owner’s request. No final contract is concluded. The issue is whether payment can be recovered for work done without a concluded contract. — QUANTUM MERUIT / PRE-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY (UK)

Channel Home Centers v. Grossman

A signed letter of intent promises exclusive negotiations and withdrawal from the market. After reliance, the property is leased to someone else. The issue is whether a letter of intent can create a binding duty to negotiate in good faith. — GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS (US)

Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores

A prospective franchisee sells businesses and relocates in reliance on assurances that he will receive a franchise. The company later demands more capital and no contract is formed. The issue is whether reliance alone can create liability. — PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (US)

Gerteis vs Vilber-Lourmat

After advanced negotiations for machinery, one party secretly contracts with a competitor and abruptly breaks off talks. The issue is whether breaking off advanced negotiations in bad faith creates liability. — PRE-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY (FRANCE)

Muroiterie Fraisse v. Property Owner

A mirror company installs mirrors in a model apartment and submits an estimate for full supply. The owner chooses another contractor. The issue is whether refusal to continue negotiations constitutes fault. — FREEDOM TO BREAK OFF NEGOTIATIONS (FRANCE)

Sofracima v. Adjani

Draft film contracts lack essential terms such as remuneration and filming dates. An advance payment is returned and negotiations collapse. The issue is whether missing essential terms prevent contract formation. — NO CONTRACT / INDEFINITE TERMS (FRANCE)

Newsprint Security Case

During negotiations, a shareholder assures a supplier that personal security will be provided. No binding guarantee is concluded and the company defaults. The issue is liability for negligent assurances during negotiations. — CULPA IN CONTRAHENDO (GERMANY)

Newspaper Acquisition Negotiation Case

After lengthy and detailed negotiations for acquisition of newspapers, one party withdraws shortly before signing. The issue is whether advanced negotiations alone create liability. — BREAKING OFF NEGOTIATIONS (GERMANY)

Leaf v. International Galleries

A painting is sold as the work of a famous artist. Five years later it turns out not to be authentic. The buyer seeks rescission. The issue is whether mistaken attribution of authorship justifies rescission after significant delay. — MISTAKE (UK)

Smith v. Zimbalist

A professional violin dealer sells instruments described as authentic masterpieces. They later turn out not to be genuine. The issue is whether statements by an expert seller about authenticity constitute binding representations. — MISTAKE / MISREPRESENTATION (US)

Firestone & Parson, Inc. v. Union League of Philadelphia

A painting believed at the time of sale to be by a famous artist later loses that attribution due to changed expert opinion. The buyer seeks rescission for mutual mistake. The issue is whether later reattribution proves mistake at the time of contract. — MISTAKE / VALUE FLUCTUATION (US)

Marquises chairs case

Two chairs sold as 18th-century “marquises” are later discovered to be reconstructed from parts of different periods. The issue is whether error about historical period constitutes mistake about an essential quality. — MISTAKE – ESSENTIAL QUALITY (FRANCE)

Fragonard Painting case

A painting is sold as “attributed to” a famous artist and later recognized as authentic. The seller seeks annulment. The issue is whether a party who accepted uncertainty can later invoke mistake. — MISTAKE & ASSUMED RISK (FRANCE)

Rolls Royce case

A used car described as a 1954 model is later discovered to have first been sold in 1955. The issue is whether a discrepancy about model year constitutes mistake about an essential quality. — MISTAKE – NON-ESSENTIAL QUALITY (FRANCE)

Ming Vases Case

Chinese vases sold cheaply are later identified as rare antiques from the Ming dynasty. The seller claims mistake. The issue is whether error about age and origin allows avoidance if the seller did not assume the risk. — MISTAKE – CHARACTERISTICS OF THING (GERMANY)

Ice on Water Painting case

A painting sold as an original work is later alleged not to be authentic. The buyer had knowingly entered a speculative purchase without guarantee. The issue is whether mistake applies when authenticity risk was accepted. — MISTAKE & SPECULATIVE RISK (GERMANY)

Griffith v. Brymer

A room is rented to watch a coronation procession that had already been postponed unknown to both parties. The issue is whether a shared false assumption about the event voids the contract. — MUTUAL MISTAKE (UK)

Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd. v. John Walker & Sons, Ltd.

A warehouse is believed not to be listed as historic at the time of sale, but it becomes listed shortly after the contract. The issue is whether mistaken assumptions about redevelopment potential justify rescission. — MISTAKE / FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE (UK)

Sherwood v. Walker

A cow sold as barren turns out to be pregnant and far more valuable. The issue is whether fertility is a mistake about substance rather than mere quality. — MUTUAL MISTAKE – SUBSTANCE (US)

Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly

A property purchased “as is” is later condemned due to a hidden sewage defect. The issue is whether mutual mistake is barred when the contract allocates risk to the buyer. — MISTAKE & RISK ALLOCATION (US)

Highway construction mistake case

After agreeing to purchase property, buyers discover that a highway project had already been planned nearby, affecting enjoyment and tranquility. The issue is whether this constitutes mistake about an essential characteristic. — MISTAKE – ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY (FRANCE)

Kennedy v. The Panama, New Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Co.

Shares are purchased based on the belief that a government mail contract exists. The contract later proves invalid. The issue is whether mistake affecting value, rather than substance, voids the contract. — MISTAKE – VALUE (UK)

Bell v. Lever Brothers

Compensation agreements are concluded to terminate employment contracts. Later, prior misconduct is discovered that would have justified dismissal without compensation. The issue is whether mutual mistake about quality of service renders the agreement void. — HIGH THRESHOLD FOR MISTAKE (UK)

Société H.L.M. Carpi v. Société d’équipement d’Auvergne

Land sold for construction later proves capable of supporting fewer houses than expected due to soil instability. The issue is whether reduced building capacity justifies annulment for mistake. — MISTAKE – PROFESSIONAL RISK (FRANCE)

Cresswell v. Potter

A wife signs a document releasing her half-interest in the matrimonial home after leaving her husband, without independent advice and for no real value. The issue is whether equity protects a vulnerable and uninformed party from an improvident bargain. — BARGAINING INEQUALITY / EQUITY (UK)

Lloyds Bank v. Bundy

An elderly farmer mortgages his only asset to secure his son’s failing business after relying on the bank manager’s advice and without independent counsel. The issue is whether undue influence arising from inequality of bargaining power makes the charge unenforceable. — UNDUE INFLUENCE / INEQUALITY (UK)

Toker v. Westerman

A refrigerator worth around $300–$400 is sold for over $1,200 under an installment contract. The buyer stops paying. The issue is whether extreme price disparity alone renders a contract unconscionable. — UNCONSCIONABILITY – PRICE DISPARITY (US)

Carboni v. Arrospide

A borrower agrees to a loan with a 200% annual interest rate secured by real property. The issue is whether an excessive interest rate combined with limited bargaining power constitutes procedural and substantive unconscionability. — UNCONSCIONABILITY – USURY (US)

Maxwell v. Fidelity Bank

A solar heater sold door-to-door for a dramatically inflated financed price is secured by a deed of trust on the buyer’s modest home. The issue is whether both procedural and substantive unconscionability render the contract unenforceable. — UNCONSCIONABILITY – SLIDING SCALE (US)

Lease invalidity case under § 138

A lease imposes heavy financial burdens and clauses ensuring payment regardless of performance. The issue is whether a transaction can be void as contrary to good morals due to oppressive structure and imbalance. — GOOD MORALS / §138 BGB (GERMANY)

45% Loan and Good Morals under § 138

A loan requiring approximately 45% annual interest is granted with strong collateral despite availability of normal financing. The issue is whether excessive interest combined with exploitation renders the loan void. — USURY / GOOD MORALS (GERMANY)

Steamship Rolf case

A stranded ship captain agrees to pay an excessive salvage fee under imminent danger of total loss. The issue is whether consent given under fear of serious harm constitutes duress. — DURESS – FEAR OF HARM (FRANCE)

Elderly man duress case

An abandoned and paralyzed elderly man transfers property to tenants who threaten to withdraw care unless he agrees. The issue is whether exploitation of dependency invalidates consent. — DURESS / DEPENDENCE (FRANCE)

Lawniezak v. Hautmont

A settlement reduces a court-awarded sum of 60,000 francs to 1,500 francs after manipulation of the victim’s vulnerable state. The issue is whether fraud and exploitation invalidate the agreement. — FRAUD / EXPLOITATION (FRANCE)

Art Expert’s Deceit case

Paintings are sold at prices vastly exceeding their real value by a seller presenting himself as an expert. The issue is whether deceptive conduct about value constitutes fraud beyond ordinary sales exaggeration. — FRAUD / VALUE MISREPRESENTATION (FRANCE)

Weaver v. American Oil Co.

A service station operator signs a standard-form lease containing a clause indemnifying the oil company even for its own negligence. The clause was not explained and was in fine print. The issue is whether such a clause is enforceable given unequal bargaining power. — UNCONSCIONABILITY – STANDARD TERMS (US)

Banchereau v. Chronoplast

A rapid delivery company fails to deliver time-sensitive documents. A clause limits liability to the cost of carriage. The issue is whether a limitation clause that defeats the essential obligation of rapid delivery is valid. — ESSENTIAL OBLIGATION / ART. 1170 (FRANCE)

Faurecia v. Oracle

Software delivered does not function properly. The contract contains a negotiated limitation of liability clause. The issue is whether breach of an essential obligation automatically invalidates such a clause. — LIMITATION CLAUSE – NEGOTIATED RISK (FRANCE)

Insurance with forfeiture clause case

An insurance contract provides total forfeiture of indemnity if inaccurate information is used, even if unrelated to part of the claim. The issue is whether such a broad forfeiture clause creates significant imbalance. — SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE / ART. 1171 (FRANCE)

Gym contract case

A fitness contract allows termination for illness only under strict notice and medical disclosure requirements. The issue is whether such restrictive termination clauses unfairly disadvantage consumers under §307 BGB. — CONTROL OF STANDARD TERMS (GERMANY)

Taylor v. Caldwell

A music hall is rented for concerts but burns down before the first event without fault of either party. The issue is whether destruction of the subject matter discharges both parties from performance. — IMPOSSIBILITY / IMPLIED CONDITION (UK)

Krell v. Henry

A flat is rented to watch a coronation procession. The procession is cancelled after the contract is made. The issue is whether the cancellation destroys the foundation of the contract even though performance is still physically possible. — FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE (UK)

Tsakiroglou & Co., Ltd. v. Noblee & Thorl G.m.b.h.

Goods are to be shipped through the Suez Canal, which closes after the contract. Shipment is still possible via a longer route at higher cost. The issue is whether increased expense amounts to frustration. — NO FRUSTRATION – INCREASED COST (UK)

Mineral Park Land Co. v. Howard

A contractor agrees to take all necessary gravel from a specific land. Most of it is underwater and extraction would be extremely costly. The issue is whether excessive and unreasonable cost amounts to impracticability. — COMMERCIAL IMPRACTICABILITY (US)

Transatlantic Financing Corp. v. United States

A ship must travel around the Cape of Good Hope after the Suez Canal closes, making the voyage longer and more expensive. The issue is whether increased cost alone makes performance commercially impracticable. — NO IMPRACTICABILITY (US)

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v. Forsyth

A swimming pool is built shallower than specified but remains usable and safe. The cost of rebuilding would be disproportionate. The issue is whether damages should reflect cost of cure or only loss of amenity. — DIMINUTION IN VALUE / LOSS OF AMENITY (UK)

Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co

A mining lease requires land restoration after extraction. The cost of restoration is vastly higher than the increase in land value it would produce. The issue is whether damages should be cost of performance or diminution in value. — ECONOMIC WASTE / DIMINUTION IN VALUE (US)

Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd.

A holiday promised lively entertainment and festive atmosphere but delivers disappointment and loneliness. The issue is whether damages can be awarded for loss of enjoyment in a contract aimed at pleasure. — DAMAGES FOR DISTRESS (UK)

Deitsch v. The Music Company

A band fails to appear at a wedding reception despite payment and confirmation. The issue is whether damages for distress and inconvenience are recoverable where emotional disturbance was foreseeable. — EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES (US)

Small Wedding Room case

A reserved wedding room is unavailable due to double booking, and the celebration cannot take place. The issue is whether emotional disappointment without medically significant injury is compensable. — NON-PECUNIARY LOSS (GERMANY)

Contractor Burning Down Chateau

A contractor negligently causes a fire while repairing a roof. The issue is whether liability in contract extends only to foreseeable damages absent intentional misconduct. — FORESEEABILITY LIMITATION (FRANCE)

Rouquier v. Paris-Lyon-Mediterranean Railroad Co.

A passenger checks a box containing highly valuable essence without declaring its value. The box is stolen. The issue is whether the carrier is liable for unforeseeable extraordinary loss. — FORESEEABILITY & DECLARATION OF VALUE (FRANCE)

Hadley v. Baxendale

A mill’s crankshaft is delayed in transport, prolonging closure. The carrier was not informed no spare shaft existed. The issue is whether lost profits were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. — TWO-LIMB TEST FOR FORESEEABILITY (UK)

Koufos v. C. Czarnikow, Ltd

A ship carrying sugar arrives late and the market price drops during delay. The issue is whether market fluctuation was a serious possibility and therefore foreseeable. — REAL LIKELIHOOD TEST (UK)

Brochure Translation Error case

A faulty translation leads to unusable brochures causing losses far exceeding the translation fee. The issue is whether failure to warn of unusually high risk constitutes contributory fault. — CONTRIBUTORY FAULT / §254 BGB (GERMANY)

Jewels in the trunk case

Valuable jewellery is left in a car trunk at a hotel without notifying staff and is stolen. The issue is whether failure to warn of extraordinary risk reduces recovery. — CONTRIBUTORY FAULT / EXTRAORDINARY RISK (GERMANY)

Parrot v. Wells Fargo

A sealed package containing hidden explosives explodes during shipment. The carrier had no knowledge of the danger. The issue is whether a carrier owes a duty to inspect unknown contents. — NO NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT NOTICE (US)

McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc.

A hotel guest is attacked in her room by an intruder. The issue is whether the hotel failed to adopt reasonable, cost-effective security measures. — NEGLIGENCE / RISK–UTILITY ANALYSIS (US)

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Railroad employees assist a passenger onto a train; a dropped package of fireworks explodes and injures a distant bystander. The issue is whether a duty of care extends beyond the foreseeable zone of danger. — DUTY & FORESEEABILITY (US)

Hegyes v. Unjian Enterprises

A minor car accident allegedly leads to neurological injury in a child born later. The issue is whether causation is sufficiently established and foreseeable. — PROXIMATE CAUSE LIMITS (US)

Tieder v. Little

A negligently constructed wall collapses after being struck by a vehicle, killing a student. The issue is whether the type of harm was within the foreseeable scope of risk. — PROXIMATE CAUSE & FORESEEABILITY (US)