This is the page for Caroline Bradley’s Contracts Class at the University of Miami School of Law. For the Fall Semester 2014 we will be using the following books: Farnsworth, Sanger, Cohen, Brooks and Garvin, Cases and Materials on Contracts (8th Ed. 2013) and Farnsworth, Sanger, Cohen, Brooks and Garvin, Selections for Contracts: Uniform Commercial Code, Restatement Second (2013).
Week 3: September 1-5: No classes (make-ups for 2 classes scheduled for 9.30 am on Monday 22 September and Monday 20 October in Room E352).
Think about the following facts:
A large number of ticketholders for Superbowl XLV were disappointed when they were either assigned to seating which was inferior to the seating they had tickets for or gave them a poor view of the video board. Some ticketholders were unable to sit in the stadium because the temporary seating installed for the game was unsafe. What damages should the ticketholders get? On a restitution theory? On a reliance theory? On an expectation theory?
Here is what the NFL offered (this information comes from the denial of class action certification in Simms v Jones (you are not required to read the linked document)):
1. $2,400 (three times the face value of the ticket) plus one free, transferable ticket for a non-temporary seat at the next NFL Super Bowl game;
2. One free, non-transferable ticket for a non-temporary seat at any future SuperBowl game of the fan’s choice, plus round trip airfare and hotel accommodations provided by the NFL; or
3. the greater of (i) $5,000 or (ii) an amount equal to the aggregate total of the actual, documented expenses incurred by the ticketholder, including (a) the actual price paid for the Super Bowl XLV game ticket, (b) airfare or other expenses incurred related to travel to/from the Dallas – Ft. Worth area, (c) a per diem for food, tips and ancillary charges at a daily rate of $100 a day for up to five days actually spent in the DFW area, (d) hotel lodging costs for room, internet, parking and tax for up to four nights, (e) ground transportation and parking costs incurred, and (f) expenses for renting a car in the DFW area and gas for up to a maximum of five days rental.
Compare this offer to your assessment of what a ticketholder could claim under any of the three theories of damages you have considered.
If you would like to write up an answer to this question for me to look at I would be happy to do so: write no more than 1 page and email it to me by the evening of Saturday 6 September. I will post an outline of how I think you should think about the issues to this blog after Saturday evening and probably before the morning of September 8th.
Think also about the contracts implications of the following statements a doctor might make:
I think you will be happy with your nose.
Most of my patients are happy after their surgeries.
I have been doing operations like this for years with no complaints.
I promise you will be happy with your new nose.
I promise after the surgery your nose will look like this picture.
Week 4: September 8-12 On Monday September 8th we will discuss White v Benkowski (briefly) and Hamer v Sidway, so please prepare to page 42. For Tuesday please read to page 48 and for Thursday to page 52. We will be moving on from thinking about damages to thinking about how to distinguish between the circumstances in which courts treat promises as constituting binding contracts and circumstances in which they don’t.
So far we have focused on:
Restatement §§ 1, [4 - mentioned in the book, though I did not specifically refer to the provision in class] 344, 347, 356.
UCC §§ 2-105, 2-313, 2-314, 2-711, 2-712, 2-713, 2-714 and 2-716.