The mother of a son and a daughter was dying. The daughter visited her mother in a hospice facility and said, “You know that I have always been the good child, and my brother has always been the bad child. Even so, you have left your property in the will to us fifty-fifty. But it would be really nice if you would sell me the family home for $100,000.” “I don’t know,” said the mother. “It is worth a lot more than that — at least $250,000.” “That is true,” said the daughter. “But I have always been good and visited you, and my brother has never visited you, so that ought to be worth something. And besides, if you won’t sell me the house for that price, maybe I won’t visit you anymore, either.” “Oh, I wouldn’t want that,” said the mother, and she signed a contract selling the house to her daughter for $100,000. Shortly thereafter, the mother died. When her son found out that the house had been sold and was not part of his mother’s estate, he sued to have the contract avoided on behalf of the mother. On what ground would the contract most likely be avoided? 息子と娘の母親が死期を迎えていた。娘はホスピス施設にいる母親を訪ね、こう言った。「私がいつもいい子で、弟がいつも悪い子だったことはご存じでしょう。それでも、あなたは遺言で財産を折半で私たちに残してくれた。でも、実家を10万ドルで売ってくれたら本当に助かるんだけど」。 「わからないわ」と母親は言った。「少なくとも25万ドルの価値はある」。 「娘は言った。「でも、私はいつもいい子で、あなたを訪ねてきたし、弟は一度も訪ねてこなかった。それに、もしあなたがその値段で家を売ってくれないなら、私ももうあなたを訪ねないかもしれない」。 「母親はそう言って、その家を100,000ドルで娘に売る契約書にサインした。 その直後、母親は亡くなった。その家が売却され、母親の遺産に含まれていないことを知った息子は、母親に代わって契約を無効にするよう訴えた。 どのような理由でこの契約が回避される可能性が高いか？

A famous chef entered into a written agreement with a well-known interior decorator, who was respected for his unique designs. In that agreement, the decorator agreed, for a fixed fee, to design the interior of the chef’s new restaurant and, upon the chef’s approval of the design plan, to decorate and furnish the restaurant accordingly. The agreement was silent as to assignment or delegation by either party. Before beginning work, the decorator sold his business to his son under an agreement in which the decorator assigned to his son. The son agreed to complete the chef-decorator contract. The son was also an experienced decorator of excellent repute, advised the chef of the assignment, and supplied the chef with information confirming both the son’s financial responsibility and past commercial success. Is the chef obligated to permit the decorator’s son to perform the chef-decorator agreement? ある有名なシェフが、そのユニークなデザインで尊敬を集めている有名な内装業者と書面による契約を結んだ。その契約では、内装業者は、シェフの新しいレストランの内装を一定の料金でデザインし、シェフがそのデザインプランを承認すれば、それに従ってレストランの内装と家具を整えることに同意した。この契約は、どちらか一方の当事者による譲渡や委任については沈黙していた。仕事を始める前に、装飾業者は息子に事業を売却し、その契約では装飾業者は息子に譲渡した。息子はシェフと内装業者の契約を完了させることに同意した。息子はまた、優れた評判を持つ経験豊富な装飾家であり、シェフに譲渡を助言し、息子の経済的責任と過去の商業的成功の両方を確認する情報をシェフに提供した。 シェフは内装業者の息子にシェフ・内装業者契約の履行を許可する義務があるか？

During an ice storm, a man’s car slipped down an embankment and became lodged against a large tree. The man called a towing company and told the company’s manager that the car was 100 feet down the embankment. “That’s lucky,” said the manager, “because our winch only goes 100 feet.” After the manager and the man agreed on a price, an employee of the company attempted to reach the car but could not because the car turned out to be 120 feet down the embankment. Is the towing company’s performance excused on the grounds of mistake?

An employer offered to pay a terminated employee $50,000 to release all claims the employee might have against the employer. The employee orally accepted the offer. The employer then prepared an unsigned release agreement and sent it to the employee for him to sign. The employee carefully prepared, signed, and sent to the employer a substitute release agreement that was identical to the original except that it excluded from the release any age discrimination claims. The employer signed the substitute release without reading it. Shortly thereafter, the employee notified the employer that he intended to sue the employer for age discrimination. Is the employer likely to prevail in an action seeking reformation of the release to conform to the parties’ oral agreement? ある雇用主が、解雇された従業員に対し5万ドルを支払うことで、従業員が雇用主に対して有する可能性のある全ての請求権を放棄すると申し出た。従業員はその申し出を口頭で受け入れた。その後、雇用主は署名のない免責同意書を作成し、署名するよう従業員に送付した。従業員は、年齢差別に関する請求を免責から除外する以外は原契約と同じ内容の免責同意書を慎重に作成し、署名して雇用主に送付した。雇用主はこの同意書に目を通すことなく署名した。その後間もなく、従業員は年齢差別で雇用主を訴えるつもりであることを雇用主に通知した。 当事者の口頭合意に合致するよう免責条項の変更を求める訴訟において、雇用主が勝訴する可能性はあるか？

An attorney received a document at his office with an attached note from a client for whom he had just finished drafting a will. The note read as follows: “Do you think this contract of sale for my boat complies with state law? I would have talked to you in person about this, but I’m on my way out of town. I will be back next week.” The attorney reviewed the document and wrote a one-page letter to the client stating that the document complied with state law. The lawyer included a bill for $500, which was a reasonable fee. The client refused to pay the attorney anything, arguing that she had never agreed to retain the attorney and that she had received nothing of value from the attorney because the sales transaction was never concluded. Assume that there is no applicable statute or rule governing the formation of attorney-client relationships in the jurisdiction. If the attorney sues the client for the $500, will the attorney be likely to prevail? ある弁護士が、遺言書作成を終えたばかりの依頼人から、メモが添付された書類を受け取った。そのメモには次のように書かれていた： 「私のボートの売買契約書は州法に準拠していると思うか？この件について直接話したいところだが、今出かけているところだ。来週また来る」。 弁護士はその文書を確認し、その文書が州法に準拠しているという1ページの手紙を依頼人に書いた。弁護士は、妥当な手数料である500ドルの請求書を添付した。 依頼者は、弁護士を雇うことに同意したことはなく、売買取引は成立していないため、弁護士から何の価値も受け取っていないと主張し、弁護士への支払いを拒否した。 管轄区域において、弁護士と依頼人の関係の形成について適用される法令または規則がないと仮定する。 弁護士が依頼者を500ドルで訴えた場合、弁護士は勝訴する可能性が高いか。

A firm contracted with a municipality to repair a drawbridge and began work on February 1. The contract provided that the firm would be paid an additional $1,000 for each day the repair was completed before the April 1 completion deadline. On March 14, an unusual gear on the bridge broke. On that same day, the firm contracted with a supplier for a March 15 delivery to the bridge site of the only available replacement gear. The supplier did not know about the early-completion incentive-pay provision in the firm’s contract. The supplier misdirected the delivery of the gear, and the firm did not receive it until March 20. The work on the bridge was completed on March 21. But for the late delivery of the gear, the firm would have completed the bridge repair on March 16. In an action against the supplier for breach of contract, will the firm be permitted to recover, as part of its damages, the additional $5,000 early-completion incentive pay it would have received from the municipality but for the supplier’s breach? ある会社が、跳ね橋の補修工事を自治体と契約し、2月1日から工事を開始した。契約では、4月1日の完了期限までに修理が完了するごとに1,000ドルが追加で支払われることになっていた。3月14日、橋の珍しい歯車が壊れた。その日、同社は唯一の交換用ギアを3月15日に橋の現場に届けるようサプライヤーと契約した。そのサプライヤーは、この会社の契約にある早期完成報奨金条項を知らなかった。サプライヤーはギヤの納品先を間違え、同社がギヤを受け取ったのは3月20日だった。橋の工事は3月21日に完了した。歯車の納品が遅れなければ、同社は3月16日に橋の補修を完了できたはずであった。 契約違反を理由とする供給業者に対する訴訟において、供給業者の契約違反がなければ自治体から受け取るはずであった5,000ドルの早期完成報奨金を、損害賠償の一部として回収することは認められるか。

An architect agreed with a developer to design a large residential development. Because the architect had a history of substance abuse problems, the parties agreed that the developer’s duty to accept and pay for the plans was conditioned on the architect’s abstaining from drinking alcohol during the six months it would take to do the work. After two months, the architect began having several alcoholic drinks each day. The developer became aware of the architect’s drinking before the architect showed the developer the preliminary plans. When the developer saw the preliminary plans, the developer told the architect that the concept was impressive and that he looked forward to seeing the final plans. The architect continued to have several alcoholic drinks each day and completed the plans within the specified contract period. However, the developer declined to review, accept, or pay for the final plans and stated that it was because of the architect’s continued use of alcohol. The architect has sued the developer for breach of contract. Which of the following arguments best supports the architect’s claim? ある建築家が開発業者と大規模な住宅開発を設計することに合意した。この建築家には薬物乱用の過去があったため、当事者は、開発業者が設計を受諾し代金を支払う義務を負う条件として、設計に要する6ヵ月間、建築家が飲酒を控えることに合意した。2ヵ月後、建築家は毎日数杯の酒を飲むようになった。デベロッパーは、建築家がデベロッパーに予備設計図を見せる前に、建築家の飲酒に気づいた。予備設計図を見た開発者は、コンセプトが印象的で、最終設計図を見るのが楽しみだと建築家に言った。建築家は毎日数杯の酒を飲み続け、指定された契約期間内に設計図を完成させた。しかし、デベロッパーは最終図面の確認、受理、支払いを拒否し、その理由は建築家が酒を飲み続けたからだと述べた。 建築家はデベロッパーを契約違反で訴えた。 建築家の主張を最も支持する論拠はどれか。

A toy collector had purchased 10 antique toys over the last several years and had had them restored by an expert in toy restoration. On June 1, the collector sent the 11th antique toy to the expert with a signed note that read: “Here is another toy for you to restore. As with all prior jobs, I will pay $500 for the work, but no more.” On June 4, after receipt of the collector’s June 1 note and the toy, the expert began restoring the toy. On June 6, the collector unexpectedly died. On June 7, unaware of the collector’s death, the expert sent the collector a note that stated that the restoration work had begun on June 4. The following day, the expert learned of the collector’s death. Does a contract exist that binds the expert and the collector’s estate? ある玩具コレクターが過去数年間に10個のアンティーク玩具を購入し、玩具修復の専門家に修復を依頼していた。月1日、コレクターは11個目のアンティーク玩具を、署名入りのメモとともに専門家に送った： 「修復してほしい玩具がもう一つある。以前の仕事と同様、500ドルを支払うが、それ以上は払わない。"と書かれていた。月4日、コレクターの6月1日付のメモとおもちゃを受け取った専門家は、おもちゃの修復を開始した。6月6日、コレクターが突然亡くなった。6月7日、コレクターの死を知らなかった専門家は、コレクターに6月4日に修復作業を開始した旨のメモを送った。翌日、専門家はコレクターの死を知った。 専門家とコレクターの遺産を拘束する契約は存在するか？

A contractor agreed to remodel a homeowner’s garage for $5,000. Just before the parties signed the one-page written contract, the homeowner called to the contractor’s attention the fact that the contract did not specify a time of completion. The parties orally agreed but did not specify in the contract that the contractor would complete the work in 60 days, and then they both signed the contract. The contract did not contain a merger clause. The contractor failed to finish the work in 60 days. The homeowner has sued the contractor for breach of contract. Is the court likely to admit evidence concerning the parties’ oral agreement that the work would be completed in 60 days?

In order to raise revenue, a city required home-repair contractors who performed work within the city limits to pay a licensing fee to a city agency. A contractor who was unaware of the fee requirement agreed to perform home repairs for a city resident. After the contractor completed the work, the resident discovered that the contractor had not paid the licensing fee, and she refused to pay for the repairs, which were otherwise satisfactory. If the contractor sues the resident for breach of contract, how is the court likely to rule? ある市は歳入を確保するため、市域内で工事を行う住宅修理業者に対し、市の機関にライセンス料を支払うことを義務付けた。ある業者は、この手数料の必要性を知らず、市の住民のために住宅修理を行うことに同意した。業者が工事を完了した後、居住者は業者がライセンス料を支払っていないことを発見し、それ以外は満足のいくものであった修理代金の支払いを拒否した。 業者が住民を契約違反で訴えた場合、裁判所はどのような判決を下すだろうか？

Collection of a debtor’s $2,000 debt to a creditor was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The debtor sold and delivered his car to a buyer under a written agreement, signed by the buyer, in which the buyer promised to pay the $2,000 purchase price to the creditor “in satisfaction of [the debtor’s] debt to [the creditor].” Can the creditor recover the $2,000 from the buyer?

An engineer signed a two-year contract to serve as the chief safety engineer for a coal mine at a salary of $7,000 per month. The position required the engineer to work underground each workday. After one week on the job, the engineer became very ill. He requested testing of the mine air system, which revealed the presence of a chemical agent to which the engineer had a rare allergic reaction. The engineer promptly quit. The coal mine then hired a qualified replacement for the remainder of the engineer’s contract at a salary of $7,500 per month. Assume that no statute or regulation applies. If the coal mine sues the engineer for breach of contract, is the coal mine likely to recover damages? ある技師が、月給7,000ドルで炭鉱の安全主任技師を務める契約を2年間結んだ。この職では、エンジニアは毎日地下で勤務する必要があった。勤務開始から1週間後、技師は重い病気にかかった。彼は坑内空気システムの検査を要求し、その結果、技師がまれにアレルギー反応を示す化学薬品が存在することが判明した。技師はすぐに退職した。その後、炭鉱はエンジニアの残りの契約期間中、月給7,500ドルで資格のある後任者を雇った。 法令が適用されないと仮定する。 炭鉱がエンジニアを契約違反で訴えた場合、炭鉱は損害賠償金を回収できる可能性が高いか？

Before putting her home up for sale, a homeowner painted the living room ceiling to conceal major water damage caused by a leaking roof that had not yet been repaired. On the first day the home was offered for sale, the homeowner gave a buyer a personal tour. The homeowner made no statements at all regarding the water damage or the roof. Without discovering the water damage or the leaking roof and without consulting a lawyer, the buyer immediately agreed in writing to buy the home for $200,000. Before the closing date, the buyer discovered the water damage and the leaking roof. The cost of repair was estimated at $22,000. The buyer has refused to go through with the purchase. If the homeowner sues the buyer for breach of contract, is the homeowner likely to prevail?

An experienced rancher contracted to harvest his neighbor’s wheat crop for $1,000 “when the crop [was] ripe.” In early September, the neighbor told the rancher that the crop was ripe. The rancher delayed because he had other customers to attend to. The neighbor was concerned that the delay might cause the crop to be lost, for hailstorms were common in that part of the country in the fall. In fact, in early October, before the crop was harvested, it was destroyed by a hailstorm. Is the rancher liable for the loss? あるベテランの牧場主が、隣人の小麦の収穫を1,000ドルで請け負った。9月初旬、隣人は収穫物が熟したことを牧場主に告げた。牧場主は、他の客がいたため収穫を遅らせた。隣人は、秋になるとその地方では雹が降ることがよくあったため、遅れたことで作物が失われるのではないかと心配した。実際、10月初旬、収穫前に雹が降って作物は全滅した。 牧場主はその損失について責任を負うのか？

A niece had worked in her aunt’s bookstore for many years. The bookstore business, which was housed in a building that the aunt leased, was independently appraised at $200,000. The aunt decided to retire. She wrote to the niece, expressing her affection for the niece and offering to sell her the bookstore business for $125,000 if the landlord would agree to a transfer of the lease. The letter also specified when the aunt would transfer the business. The niece wrote back accepting her aunt’s offer. In a phone call to the niece, the aunt stated that the landlord had approved the transfer of the lease and that she would now ask her attorney to draft a written contract so that there would be a record of the terms. Before the attorney had finished drafting the document, the aunt changed her mind about selling the business and informed the niece of her decision. In an action for breach of contract brought by the niece against her aunt, is the niece likely to prevail? 姪が叔母の書店で長年働いていた。叔母が借りていたビルに入居していた書店事業は、独自に20万ドルと査定された。叔母は引退を決意した。叔母は姪に手紙を書き、姪への愛情を伝えるとともに、家主が賃借権の譲渡に同意するならば、書店事業を125,000ドルで売却すると申し出た。手紙には、叔母がいつ事業を譲渡するかも明記されていた。姪は叔母の申し出を受け入れる返事を書いた。姪への電話の中で、叔母は、貸主が賃借権の譲渡を承認したので、条件を記録するために、これから弁護士に契約書の作成を依頼すると述べた。弁護士が契約書を作成する前に、叔母は事業を売却することに変更し、その旨を姪に伝えた。 姪が叔母に対して起こした契約違反の訴訟において、姪は勝訴する可能性が高いか？

An actor straight out of drama school and an agent entered into a one-year written contract that described the services the agent would provide. Because he was eager for work, the actor agreed, in the contract, to pay the agent 15 percent of his yearly earnings. At the end of the year, the actor was so pleased with his many roles that he gave the agent 20 percent of his earnings. After the first contract had expired, the actor and the agent decided to continue working together. They photocopied their old contract, changed the date, and signed it. At the end of the year, a dispute arose as to what percentage of earnings the actor owed. It is a trade practice in the acting profession for actors to pay their agents 10 percent of their yearly earnings, payable at the end of the year. What percentage of the actor’s earnings is a court most likely to award the agent? 演劇学校を卒業したばかりの俳優とエージェントが、エージェントが提供するサービスを記した1年間の契約書を交わした。その俳優は仕事を熱望していたため、契約書でエージェントに年間収入の15％を支払うことに同意した。その年の終わりに、その俳優は多くの役柄に満足し、エージェントに収入の20パーセントを渡した。最初の契約が切れた後、俳優とエージェントは一緒に仕事を続けることにした。二人は古い契約書をコピーし、日付を変えてサインした。その年の終わりに、俳優が支払うべき収入の割合について争いが起こった。俳優がエージェントに支払うのは年間収入の10％で、年末に支払われるのが俳優業界の慣例である。 裁判所は、俳優の収入の何パーセントをエージェントに支払うのが妥当であると判断するだろうか？

A bank agreed to lend a merchant $10,000 for one year at 8% interest. The loan proceeds were to be disbursed within two weeks. The merchant intended to use the loan proceeds to purchase a specific shipment of carpets for resale at an expected profit of $5,000 but said nothing about these plans to the bank. The bank failed to disburse the proceeds and refused to assure the merchant that it would do so. The merchant was able to secure a loan from another lender at 10% interest for one year. However, by the time the merchant started the application process for a substitute loan, it was too late to pursue the opportunity to buy the shipment of carpets. In an action against the bank for breach of contract, which of the following amounts is the merchant likely to recover?

A janitorial service contracted in writing with a hospital for a one-year term. Under the terms of the contract, the janitorial service agreed to clean the hospital daily in accordance with the hygiene standards of the city’s health code. Because the janitorial service did not clean a patient’s room in accordance with the required hygiene standards, the patient contracted an infection that required continued hospitalization. In addition to suing the hospital, the patient sued the janitorial service for breach of contract. Which of the following statements is most accurate with respect to the breach of contract claim against the janitorial service?

A developer contracted in writing to sell to a buyer a house on a one-acre lot for $100,000. The developer told the buyer that the lot abutted a national park and that the water for the house came from a natural artesian spring. The developer knew that both of these representations were important to the buyer and that both were false. The buyer moved into the house and eight months later learned that a private golf course was being constructed on the adjacent land and that the water for his house was piped in from the city reservoir. The buyer immediately sued the developer to avoid the contract. The construction of the golf course will probably increase the market value of the buyer’s property, and the water from the city reservoir exceeds all established standards for drinking water. Is the buyer likely to prevail? あるデベロッパーが、1エーカーの土地に建つ住宅を100,000ドルで買い手に販売する契約を書面で交わした。デベロッパーは買い手に対し、その土地は国立公園に接しており、家の水は天然のアルテシアン泉から湧き出るものであると告げた。開発業者は、この2つの表示が買い手にとって重要であり、どちらも虚偽であることを知っていた。買主はその家に引っ越したが、その8ヵ月後、隣接地に私設のゴルフ場が建設され、自宅の水は市の貯水池から配管されていることを知った。買い手は直ちに開発業者を訴え、契約を回避した。 ゴルフ場の建設は、おそらく買い手の土地の市場価値を高めるだろうし、市の貯水池からの水は、飲料水として確立された基準をすべて上回っている。 買い手は勝てるだろうか？

A seller entered into a contract to sell to a buyer a house for a price of $150,000. The contract contained the following clause: “This contract is conditional on the buyer’s securing bank financing at an interest rate of 7% or below.” The buyer did not make an application for bank financing and therefore did not secure it, and refused to proceed with the purchase. The seller sued the buyer for breach of contract. Is the seller likely to prevail? ある売主が、買主に住宅を150,000ドルで売却する契約を結んだ。契約書には以下の条項があった： 「本契約は、買い手が7％以下の金利で銀行融資を確保することを条件とする。買い手は銀行融資を申し込まなかったため、融資を受けられず、購入の手続きを拒否した。売主は買主を契約違反で訴えた。 売主が勝訴する可能性は高いか？

A computer retail outlet contracted to service a bank’s computer equipment for one year at a fixed monthly fee under a contract that was silent as to assignment or delegation by either party. Three months later, the retail outlet sold the service portion of its business to an experienced and well-financed computer service company. The only provision in the agreement between the retail outlet and the computer service company relating to the outlet’s contract with the bank stated that the outlet “hereby assigns all of its computer service contracts to [the computer service company].” The computer service company performed the monthly maintenance required under the service contract. Its performance was defective, however, and caused damage to the bank’s operations. Whom can the bank sue for damages arising from the computer service company’s defective performance? あるコンピューター小売店は、どちらか一方の当事者による譲渡や委任について黙秘された契約のもと、銀行のコンピューター機器のサービスを月額固定料金で1年間請け負った。その3ヵ月後、その小売店は、経験豊富で資金力のあるコンピューター・サービス会社にそのサービス部分を売却した。小売店とコンピュータ・サービス会社との間の契約書には、小売店と銀行との契約に関する唯一の条項として、小売店は「コンピュータ・サービス契約のすべてを（コンピュータ・サービス会社に）譲渡する」と記されていた。 コンピュータ・サービス会社は、サービス契約に基づいて毎月必要なメンテナンスを行った。しかし、そのパフォーマンスには欠陥があり、銀行の業務に損害を与えた。 コンピュータ・サービス会社の欠陥に起因する損害について、銀行は誰を訴えることができるか？

A borrower owed a lender $50,000 due on March 1. On January 10, the lender telephoned the borrower and said that he would discharge the debt if the borrower would promise to pay the lender $45,000 by January 15. The borrower responded, “I will attempt to get the money together.” On January 11, the lender again telephoned the borrower and said that he had changed his mind and would expect the borrower to make full payment on March 1. On January 15, the borrower tendered $45,000 as full payment, which the lender refused to accept. On March 1, the borrower refused the lender’s demand for $50,000, and the lender sued for that amount. Which of the following statements best supports the lender’s position?

In a written contract, an architect agreed to draw up plans for and to supervise construction of a client’s new house. In return, the client agreed to pay the architect a fee of $10,000 to be paid upon the house’s completion. After completion, the client claimed erroneously but in good faith that the architect’s plans were defective. The client orally offered to pay the architect $7,500 in full settlement of the claim for the fee. The architect orally accepted that offer despite the fact that the reasonable value of his services was in fact $10,000. The client paid the architect $7,500 pursuant to their agreement. The architect subsequently sued the client for the remaining $2,500. In a preliminary finding, the trier of fact found that there were no defects in the architect’s plans. Will the architect be likely to prevail in his action against the client for $2,500? ある建築家が、クライアントの新居の設計図を作成し、建築を監督することに合意した。その見返りとして、依頼人は建築家に1万ドルの報酬を支払うことに同意し、住宅が完成した時点で支払うことにした。完成後、依頼人は誤って、しかし善意で建築家のプランに欠陥があると主張した。依頼人は建築家に対し、報酬請求の全額解決として7,500ドルを支払うことを口頭で申し出た。建築家は、彼のサービスの妥当な価値は実際には10,000ドルであったにもかかわらず、口頭でその申し出を受け入れた。クライアントは、両者の合意に基づき、建築家に7,500ドルを支払った。 建築家はその後、残りの2,500ドルを求めてクライアントを訴えた。予備的認定において、事実審理官は建築家のプランに瑕疵はなかったと判断した。建築家は、2,500ドルに対する依頼者に対する訴訟で勝訴する可能性が高いか？

A homeowner and a contractor entered into a contract for the construction of a home for the price of $300,000. The contractor was to earn a profit of $10,000 for the job. After the contractor had spent $45,000 on labor and materials, including $5,000 on oak flooring not yet installed, the homeowner informed the contractor that the homeowner had lost his job and could not pay for any services. The homeowner told the contractor to stop working immediately. The reasonable market value of the labor and materials provided by the contractor at that point, including the oak flooring, was $40,000. The contractor used the $5,000 worth of oak flooring on another job. In an action by the contractor against the homeowner for damages, which of the following would be the largest amount of damages recoverable by the contractor? ある住宅所有者と請負業者が30万ドルの住宅建設請負契約を結んだ。請負業者はこの工事で1万ドルの利益を得ることになっていた。請負業者が、まだ施工されていないオーク材のフローリングに5,000ドルを含む45,000ドルを労務費と材料費に費やした後、住宅所有者は請負業者に、住宅所有者が職を失い、いかなるサービスに対する支払いもできないと伝えた。住宅所有者は請負業者に、直ちに作業を中止するよう伝えた。その時点で請負業者が提供したオーク材のフローリングを含む労務と資材の妥当な市場価値は40,000ドルであった。請負業者は、5,000ドル相当のオーク材のフローリングを別の仕事に使用した。 請負業者が住宅所有者に対して損害賠償請求訴訟を起こした場合、請負業者が回収できる損害賠償額は次のうちどれが最大となるか？

A vendor and a purchaser each signed a memorandum which stated that the vendor agreed to sell and the purchaser agreed to purchase a tract of land and that the contract should be closed and conveyance made and accepted “by tender of general warranty deed conveying a good and marketable title” on a date specified. The memorandum signed by the parties contains all of the elements deemed essential and necessary to satisfy the Statute of Frauds applicable to the transaction except that there was omission of a recitation of the agreed-upon purchase price. The vendor has refused to perform the contract, and in action by the purchaser for specific performance, the vendor relies upon the Statute of Frauds as a defense. If the purchaser offers evidence, in addition to the written memorandum, that the parties discussed and agreed upon a purchase price of $35,000 just prior to signing, the purchaser should 業者と購入者はそれぞれ、業者は土地を売却することに合意し、購入者は土地を購入することに合意し、指定された期日に「良好で市場性のある所有権を譲渡する一般保証証書の提出によって」契約を終了し、譲渡を行うこと、受け入れることに合意した旨の覚書に署名した。当事者によって署名された覚書には、合意された購入価格の記載が漏れていたことを除き、この取引に適用される詐害防止法を満たすために不可欠かつ必要とみなされる要素がすべて含まれていた。業者は契約の履行を拒否し、購入者が特定の履行を求める訴訟を起こした場合、業者は詐害防止法を抗弁として援用する。購入者が、覚書に加え、当事者が署名直前に3万5,000ドルの購入価格について協議し合意したという証拠を提出した場合、購入者は以下のようにすべきである。

In a single writing, a painter contracted with a farmer to paint three identical barns on her rural estate for $2,000 each. The contract provided for the farmer’s payment of $6,000 upon the painter’s completion of the work on all three barns. The painter did not ask for any payment when the first barn was completely painted, but she demanded $4,000 after painting the second barn. Is the farmer obligated to make the $4,000 payment? ある画家が農家と契約し、彼女の田舎にある3つの同じ納屋をそれぞれ2,000ドルで塗装した。契約書には、3つの納屋すべての塗装が完了した時点で、農家から6,000ドルが支払われることになっていた。画家は、最初の納屋の塗装が完了した時点では支払いを要求しなかったが、2番目の納屋の塗装が完了した時点で4,000ドルの支払いを要求した。 農家は4,000ドルを支払う義務があるか？

While waiting in line to open an account with a bank, a customer read a poster on the bank’s wall that said, “New Customers! $25 FOR 5 MINUTES. If you stand in line for more than five minutes, we will pay you $25! We like happy customers! (This offer may be withdrawn at any time.)” The customer started timing his wait and just as five minutes was about to pass, the bank manager tore the poster down and announced, “The $25 stand-in-line promotion is over.” The customer waited in line for ten more minutes before being served. In the customer’s action against the bank for $25, will the customer prevail? ある銀行で口座開設の列に並んでいたとき、ある客が銀行の壁に貼られた「新規のお客様へ」というポスターを読んだ！5分で25ドル。5分以上並んでくれたら25ドル払うよ！私たちはハッピーな顧客が好きなのだ！(このオファーはいつでも取り消すことができる）" 顧客は待つ時間を計り始めたが、5分が過ぎようとしたその時、銀行の支店長はポスターを剥がし、"25ドルの待機列キャンペーンは終了しました "と告げた。その客はさらに10分並んでからサービスを受けた。 顧客が銀行に対して起こした25ドル請求訴訟で、顧客は勝訴するだろうか？

A chef purchased the front portion of the land needed for a restaurant he desired to build and operate, but the back portion was the subject of a will dispute between a brother and his sister. The sister’s attorney advised her that her claim was doubtful. The chef, knowing only that the unresolved dispute existed, agreed in a signed writing to pay the sister $6,000, payable $1,000 annually, in exchange for a quitclaim deed (a deed containing no warranties) from the sister, who promptly executed such a deed to the chef and received the chef’s first annual payment. Shortly thereafter, the probate court handed down a decision in the brother’s favor, ruling that the sister had no interest in the land. This decision has become final. The chef subsequently defaulted when his second annual installment came due. In an action against the chef for breach of contract, the sister will probably あるシェフが、レストランを建設・運営するために必要な土地の前面部分を購入したが、背面部分は兄とその妹の間で遺言紛争の対象となっていた。姉の弁護士は、姉の主張は疑わしいと忠告した。シェフは、未解決の紛争が存在することだけを知っていたが、署名入りの書面で、姉から権利放棄証書（保証を含まない証書）を受け取る代わりに、姉に6,000ドルを支払い、毎年1,000ドルを支払うことに同意した。その直後、検認裁判所が兄に有利な判決を下し、妹には土地に対する権利がないと裁定した。この判決は確定した。シェフはその後、2回目の年賦の支払期日が到来した際に債務不履行に陥った。 契約不履行でシェフを訴えた場合、姉はおそらく次のようになるだろう。

A manager, aged 60, who had no plans for early retirement, had worked for a company for 20 years as a managerial employee-at-will when he had a conversation with the company’s president about the manager’s postretirement goal of extensive travel around the United States. A month later, the president handed the manager a written, signed resolution of the company’s board of directors stating that when and if the manager should decide to retire, at his option, the company, in recognition of his past service, would pay him a $2,000-per-month lifetime pension. (The company had no regularized retirement plan for at-will employees.) Shortly thereafter, the manager retired and immediately bought a $30,000 recreational vehicle for his planned travels. After receiving the promised $2,000 monthly pension from the company for six months, the manager, now unemployable elsewhere, received a letter from the company advising him that the pension would cease immediately because of recessionary budget constraints affecting in varying degrees all managerial salaries and retirement pensions. In a suit against the company for breach of contract, the manager will probably

When a student finished college, her father handed her a signed memorandum stating that if she would go to law school for three academic years, he would pay her room, board, and tuition and would “give her a $1,000 bonus” for each “A” she got in law school. Her father paid her tuition, room, and board for her first year but died just before the end of that year. Subsequently, the student learned that she had received two “A’s” in the second semester. The executor of her father’s estate has refused to pay her anything for the two “A’s” and has told her that the estate will no longer pay her tuition, room, and board in law school. In an action against her father’s estate for $2,000 on account of the two “A’s,” if the only defense raised is lack of consideration, the student probably will ある学生が大学を卒業したとき、父親は彼女に、もし彼女が3年間ロースクールに通うなら、部屋代、食費、授業料を支払い、ロースクールで「A」を取るごとに「1000ドルのボーナスを与える」という署名入りの覚書を手渡した。父親は最初の1年間の学費、部屋代、食費を彼女に支払ったが、その年の終了直前に亡くなった。その後、彼女は2学期に2つの「A」を獲得したことを知った。父親の遺産執行人は、2つの「A」に対する支払いを拒否し、遺産はもうロー・スクールでの授業料、部屋代、食費を支払わないと彼女に告げた。 2つの「A」を理由に父親の遺産に対して2,000ドルを請求する訴訟において、唯一の抗弁が対価の欠如である場合、学生はおそらく次のようになる。

A wealthy widow, wishing to make a substantial and potentially enduring gift to her beloved adult stepson, established with a bank a passbook savings account by an initial deposit of $10,000. The passbook was issued solely in the stepson’s name; but the widow retained possession of it, and her stepson was not then informed of the savings account. Subsequently, the widow became disgusted with her stepson’s behavior and decided to give the same savings account solely to her beloved adult daughter. As permitted by the rules of the bank, the widow effected this change by agreement with the bank. This time she left possession of the passbook with the bank. Shortly thereafter, the stepson learned of the original savings account in his name and the subsequent switch to the daughter’s name. If the stepson now sues the bank for $10,000 plus accrued interest, will the action succeed? ある裕福な未亡人が、最愛の継子（成人）に永続する可能性のある多額の贈与を行おうと考え、銀行に10,000ドルを入金して通帳式の普通預金口座を開設した。 通帳は連れ子名義で発行されたが、未亡人はその通帳を所有しており、連れ子にはその預金口座のことは知らされていなかった。その後、継子の行動に嫌気がさした未亡人は、同じ預金口座を最愛の成人した娘にだけ与えることにした。銀行の規則で認められているように、未亡人は銀行と合意してこの変更を行った。このとき、彼女は通帳を銀行に預けた。その後間もなく、連れ子は自分名義の当初の普通預金口座と、その後娘名義に変更されたことを知った。継子が銀行を相手取って1万ドルと未払い利息を請求した場合、この訴訟は成功するか？

A fifty-year-old uncle wrote to his adult, unemployed niece and said: “If you come and live with me and take care of me and my farm for the rest of my life, I will leave the farm to you in my will.” The niece immediately moved in with her uncle and took care of him and the farm until the uncle was killed instantly in an automobile accident two weeks later. By his will, the uncle left his entire estate, including the farm, to his unmarried sister. The farm was reasonably worth $75,000. Which of the following best states the rights of the niece and the uncle’s estate (or sister)? ある50歳の叔父が、成人した無職の姪に手紙を書き、こう言った： 「もし君が私と一緒に暮らし、私と私の農場の面倒を一生見てくれるなら、遺言で農場を君に残してあげよう」。姪はすぐに叔父の家に身を寄せ、2週間後に叔父が自動車事故で即死するまで叔父と農場の世話をした。遺言により、叔父は農場を含む全財産を未婚の妹に遺した。農場は75,000ドルの価値があった。 姪と叔父の遺産（または妹）の権利について、最も適切なものはどれか。

In March, when a student was 17, an electronics store delivered to him a television set. At that time the student agreed in writing to pay $400 for the set on July 1 when he would reach his eighteenth birthday. Eighteen is the applicable statutory age of majority, and on that date the student was to receive the proceeds of a trust. On July 1, when the reasonable value of the television set was $250, the student sent the electronics store a signed letter stating, “I’ll only pay you $300; that is all the set is worth.” In an action against the student for money damages on July 2, what is the maximum amount that the electronics store will be entitled to recover? ある学生が17歳だった3月、家電量販店が彼にテレビを配達した。その際、学生は、18歳の誕生日を迎える7月1日にテレビセットの代金400ドルを支払うことに書面で同意した。18歳は法定成年年齢であり、その日に生徒は信託の収益を受け取ることになっていた。7月1日、テレビの適正価格が250ドルであったため、学生は家電量販店に「300ドルしか払わない。 7月2日、学生に対する金銭賠償請求訴訟において、電気店が回収できる最高額はいくらか。

On April 1, a landowner and an investor signed a writing in which the landowner, “in consideration of $100 to be paid to the landowner by the investor,” offered the investor the right to purchase the landowner’s farm for $100,000 within 30 days. The writing further provided, “This offer will become effective as an option only if and when the $100 consideration is in fact paid.” On April 20, the landowner, having received no payment or other communication from the investor, sold and conveyed the farm to a developer for $120,000. On April 21, the landowner received a letter from the investor enclosing a cashier’s check for $100 payable to the landowner and stating, “I am hereby exercising my option to purchase the farm and am prepared to close whenever you’re ready.” Which of the following, if proved, best supports the investor’s suit against the landowner for breach of contract? 4月1日、ある土地所有者と投資家は、「投資家が土地所有者に支払う100ドルを対価として」、土地所有者の農場を30日以内に10万ドルで購入する権利を投資家に提供する旨の書面に署名した。その書面にはさらに、「この申し出は、100ドルの対価が実際に支払われた場合に限り、オプションとして有効になる」と記されていた。4月20日、地主は投資家から支払いその他の連絡を受けなかったため、農場を120,000ドルで開発業者に売却、譲渡した。4月21日、土地所有者は投資家から、土地所有者を受取人とする100ドルの現金小切手を同封した書簡を受け取った。 次のうち、証明された場合、投資家が地主に対して契約違反を理由に訴訟を起こすことを最も支持するものはどれか。

A landowner and a contractor entered into a written contract under which the contractor agreed to build a building and pave an adjacent sidewalk for the landowner at a price of $200,000. Later, while construction was proceeding, the landowner and the contractor entered into an oral modification under which the contractor was not obligated to pave the sidewalk, but still would be entitled to $200,000 upon completion. The contractor completed the building. The landowner, after discussions with his landscaper, demanded that the contractor pave the adjacent sidewalk. The contractor refused. Has the contractor breached the contract? 地主と請負業者が書面による契約を結び、請負業者は地主のために建物を建設し、隣接する歩道を$200,000で舗装することに合意した。その後、建設が進められる中、地主と請負業者は、請負業者が歩道を舗装する義務はないが、完成時に20万ドルを受け取る権利があるとの口頭による変更契約を結んだ。請負業者は建物を完成させた。地主は造園業者と話し合った後、請負業者に隣接する歩道の舗装を要求した。請負業者はこれを拒否した。 請負業者は契約に違反したか？

On May 1, an uncle mailed a letter to his adult nephew that stated: “I am thinking of selling my pickup truck, which you have seen and ridden in. I would consider taking $7,000 for it.” On May 3, the nephew mailed the following response: “I will buy your pickup for $7,000 cash.” The uncle received this letter on May 5 and on May 6 mailed a note that stated: “It’s a deal.” On May 7, before the nephew had received the letter of May 6, he phoned his uncle to report that he no longer wanted to buy the pickup truck because his driver’s license had been suspended. Which of the following statements concerning this exchange is accurate?

In September 2010, a student, 23 years old and unmarried, was beginning his third year of law school. At that time he entered into a written lease with a landlord for the lease of an apartment for the nine-month school year ending on May 31, 2011, at $650 a month, payable in advance on the first day of each month. The student paid the rent through December 1, but did not pay the amount due on January 1, nor has he paid any since. On January 15, 2011, the landlord threatened to evict the student if he did not pay the rent. That night the student called his father and told him that he did not have the money with which to pay the rent nor did he have the money with which to pay his tuition for the second semester. The student’s father told the student that if he agreed not to marry until he finished law school, he would pay his tuition, the $650 rent that was due January 1, the rent for the rest of the school year, and $200 a month spending money until the student graduated. The student, who was engaged to be married at that time, agreed that he would not marry until after he graduated. On January 16, the student’s father wrote to the landlord the following signed letter, which the landlord received on January 17: “Because of the love and affection that I bear my son, if you do not evict him, I will pay the rent he now owes you and will pay you his $650 rent on the first day of each month through May 2011. If I do not hear from you by January 25, I will assume that this arrangement is all right with you.” The landlord did not reply to the father’s letter and he did not evict the student. The student’s father died suddenly on January 26. The student continued to live in the apartment through May 31, 2011, but paid no more rent. He did not marry and graduated from law school. His father had paid the student’s tuition for the spring semester, but had paid no money to either the landlord or the student. The student’s claim against his father’s estate having been denied by the executor, the student brought suit against the estate in June 2011, asking for a judgment of $800 ($200 spending money for each of the months, February through May). In this action, the student probably will be 2010年9月、23歳で未婚の学生がロースクール3年生になった。その際、2011年5月31日までの9ヶ月間のアパートを月650ドルで、毎月1日に前払いする契約書を家主と交わした。生徒は12月1日まで家賃を支払ったが、1月1日に支払うべき金額を支払わなかった。 2011年1月15日、大家は家賃を払わなければ学生を追い出すと脅した。その夜、学生は父親に電話し、家賃を払うお金も2学期の授業料を払うお金もないと伝えた。父親は学生に、ロースクールを卒業するまで結婚しないことに同意すれば、授業料、1月1日締め切りの家賃650ドル、残りの学年の家賃、学生が卒業するまで毎月200ドルの小遣いを支払うと言った。当時結婚の約束をしていた学生は、卒業するまで結婚しないことに同意した。1月16日、生徒の父親は家主に次のような署名入りの手紙を書き、家主は1月17日にそれを受け取った。「息子に対する愛情と愛情があるので、もし退去させないのであれば、現在息子が支払っている家賃を支払い、2011年5月まで毎月1日に650ドルの家賃を支払う。1月25日までに連絡がなければ、この取り決めで問題ないと判断する」。家主は父親の手紙に返信せず、生徒を立ち退かせなかった。生徒の父親は1月26日に急死した。学生は2011年5月31日までアパートに住み続けたが、家賃は支払わなかった。彼は結婚せず、ロースクールを卒業した。父親は学生の春学期の授業料を支払っていたが、家主にも学生にも金銭を支払っていなかった。父親の遺産に対する学生の請求は遺言執行者によって拒否されたため、学生は2011年6月に遺産に対して訴訟を起こし、800ドル（2月から5月までの各月の小遣い200ドル）の判決を求めた。この訴訟において、生徒はおそらく

An innkeeper, who had no previous experience in the motel or commercial laundry business and who knew nothing about the trade usages of either business, bought a motel and signed an agreement with a laundry company for the motel’s laundry services. The one-year agreement provided for “daily service at $500 a week.” From their conversations during negotiation, the laundry company knew that the innkeeper expected laundry services seven days a week. When the laundry company refused to pick up the motel’s laundry on two successive Sundays and indicated that it would not ever do so, the innkeeper canceled the agreement. The laundry company sued the innkeeper for breach of contract. At trial, clear evidence was introduced to show that in the commercial laundry business “daily service” did not include service on Sundays. Will the laundry company succeed in its action? モーテルや商業ランドリー事業の経験がなく、どちらの事業についても取引上の慣習を何も知らない旅館経営者が、モーテルを購入し、ランドリー会社とモーテルのランドリーサービスに関する契約を結んだ。1年間の契約では、「週500ドルで毎日サービス」となっていた。交渉中の会話から、ランドリー会社は、宿の主人が週7日のランドリーサービスを期待していることを知っていた。ランドリー会社が2日続けて日曜日の洗濯物の引き取りを拒否し、今後も引き取らないと示したため、宿主は契約を解除した。ランドリー会社は契約違反で宿主を訴えた。裁判では、商業ランドリー・ビジネスにおいて「デイリー・サービス」に日曜のサービスは含まれないことを示す明確な証拠が提出された。 果たしてランドリー会社の訴えは成功するのだろうか？

On May 1, a seller and a buyer entered into a written contract, signed by both parties, for the sale of a tract of land for $100,000. Delivery of the deed and payment of the purchase price were scheduled for July 1. On June 1, the buyer received a letter from the seller repudiating the contract. On June 5, the buyer bought a second tract of land at a higher price as a substitute for the first tract. On June 10, the seller communicated a retraction of the repudiation to the buyer. The buyer did not tender the purchase price for the first tract on July 1, but subsequently sued the seller for breach of contract. Will the buyer likely prevail? 5月1日、売主と買主は、100,000ドルで土地を売却する契約を両当事者の署名入りで締結した。証書の引渡しと売買代金の支払いは7月1日に予定されていた。6月1日、買主は売主から契約を破棄する手紙を受け取った。6月5日、買主は最初の土地の代わりとして2番目の土地をより高い価格で購入した。6月10日、売主は買主に否認の撤回を伝えた。 買主は7月1日に最初の土地の購入代金を支払わなかったが、その後売主を契約違反で訴えた。 買い手が勝訴する可能性は高いか？

A carpenter contracted with a homeowner to remodel the homeowner’s home for $10,000, to be paid on completion of the work. On May 29, relying on his expectation that he would finish the work and have the homeowner’s payment on June 1, the carpenter contracted to buy a car for “$10,000 in cash, if payment is made on June 1; if payment is made thereafter, the price is $12,000.” The carpenter completed the work according to specifications on June 1 and demanded payment from the homeowner on that date. The homeowner, without any excuse, refused to pay. Thereupon, the carpenter became very excited, suffered a minor heart attack, and, as a result, incurred medical expenses of $1,000. The reasonable value of the carpenter’s services in remodeling the homeowner’s home was $13,000. In an action by the carpenter against the homeowner, which of the following should be the carpenter’s measure of recovery? ある大工が住宅所有者との間で、1万ドルで住宅所有者の自宅を改造し、工事完了時に代金を支払う契約を結んだ。5月29日、大工は、6月1日に工事を完了し、家主から代金を受け取れるという期待に基づき、「6月1日に支払いが行われる場合は現金10,000ドル、それ以降に支払いが行われる場合は12,000ドル」で車を購入する契約を結んだ。大工は6月1日に仕様書通りに工事を完了し、その日に家主に支払いを要求した。家主は何の弁解もなく支払いを拒否した。そこで大工は非常に興奮し、軽い心臓発作を起こし、その結果1,000ドルの医療費がかかった。住宅所有者の家を改造する際の大工のサービスの妥当な価値は13,000ドルであった。 大工が住宅所有者に対して起こした訴訟において、大工の回復の尺度となるべきものはどれか。