Reading
Chapter 2 (complete). Restatement (Second) § 17.
Time budget
- Floor
- ~40 min — R2d § 1 + Steinberg. The doctrine the next class assumes you have covered.
- Target
- ~75 min — Floor + Pappas + R2d § 2 + synthesis.
- Ceiling
- ~110 min — Target + Practice problems + open-discussion on the synthesis question.
By the end of this class, you can
- Apply R2d § 1's definition of a contract to two fact patterns and decide whether each crosses from unenforceable promise to enforceable agreement.
- Classify a transaction as bilateral or unilateral and predict how that classification affects the moment of formation.
- Apply the predominant-purpose test to a mixed transaction (e.g., installed appliance) and decide whether Article 2 or common law governs.
We finish Module I by closing the loop on Chapter 2 and putting two distinctions on the page that carry forward into Mutual Assent and Consideration.
Two distinctions to leave with
Bilateral vs unilateral. A bilateral contract is a promise exchanged for a promise. A unilateral contract is a promise exchanged for a performance. Most modern transactions are bilateral; the unilateral form survives in reward cases, options, and certain employment terms.
Agreement vs bargain. An agreement is the manifestation of mutual assent. A bargain is the agreement to exchange one thing for another. Every bargain is an agreement; not every agreement is a bargain.
Cases
Steinberg shows what a contract looks like when the bargain is implicit in a sequence of acts: a published bulletin, an application fee, an acceptance, a decision. Pappas shows what is not a contract: words that look like a promise but disclaim the very commitment a promise requires.
What you should be able to do at the end of Module I
Identify whether a given exchange contains a promise. Distinguish a promise from an offer, an agreement, and a bargain. Read a fact pattern and place each statement in one of those categories. Module II opens Wednesday with bargains as the doctrinal entry point to mutual assent.
Slide deck
Spacebar / arrow keys to advance. Press F for fullscreen. Click Print / PDF for handouts. PPTX export is professor-only.
Rules
Cases
- Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School 69 Ill. 2d 320, 371 N.E.2d 634 (1977) A contract may be formed through a sequence of acts when one party invites performance, the other performs, and the conduct objectively manifests assent; the offeror's undisclosed intent is immaterial.
- Pappas v. Bever 219 N.W.2d 720 (Iowa 1974) A statement of present intention to act in the future is not a promise; the language of intent does not become a binding commitment merely because the speaker later behaves as if it were.
Cold call
Prepare to be called on: Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School
K exercises
Notes
This is the end of Module I. We close it with the unilateral vs bilateral distinction and the agreement vs bargain distinction, both of which are doctrinal pivots that we will keep using all year.