Reading
Review Chapters 10–13. No new doctrine.
Time budget
- Floor
- Quiz (0:00–0:25) + item-level debrief (0:25–0:55). The quiz happens. The debrief covers every item with the doctrinal trap explained. ~55 min.
- Target
- Floor + skills assessment (0:55–1:40) at scheduled scope. The deliverable is collected at the end. ~85 min.
- Ceiling
- Target + bridge (1:40–1:50) — wrap and preview of the next module's central problem. Full ~110 min.
By the end of this class, you can
- Administer the Module IV capstone covering Statute of Frauds, mistake, improper bargaining, and incapacity defenses.
- Diagnose recurring confusions between gateway requirements of fall defenses and assign focused review before Thanksgiving.
This meeting is the Module IV Capstone. The Capstone structure block below sets the time blocks for the meeting.
Why a capstone here
Module IV closes defenses to contract formation. Students have studied the Statute of Frauds, mistake, improper bargaining (duress, fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, unconscionability), and incapacity. The negotiation simulation forces them to recognize defenses at a counsel table, where the defense is one factor among many, rather than in a casebook where the defense IS the issue. That recognition is the difference between knowing the doctrine and using it.
The thread that ties the module together
Each defense identifies a different defect in the conditions of formation, and the law refuses to enforce because the bargain reflects something other than two parties’ free and informed choice. The Statute of Frauds polices the form of the proof; mistake polices a shared false assumption; misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence police one party’s conduct; incapacity polices a party’s status or condition; and unconscionability polices the deal itself. The single most-tested line is void versus voidable: every result in the module is voidable except physical compulsion, which is void because no volitional act occurred at all.
What the exam will do that the quiz does not
The quiz tests each defense independently. The real test — and the negotiation simulation — presents facts that overlap two or three defenses and demands a choice and a justification. The recurring overlaps: a grossly mispriced sale can sound in mistake, nondisclosure, or unconscionability (DePrince); unconscionability’s “no meaningful choice” resembles incapacity in effect but rests on a different doctrine (Williams); and pressure within a relationship can be either duress or undue influence depending on whether the lever was a threat or the exploitation of dominance (Quebodeaux). Mastery is choosing the strongest theory and saying why.
Capstone structure for Defenses
In-class MCQ via Brightspace, about 20–25 items, 25 minutes. Counts 5% toward the semester grade. Students with extended-time accommodations take the same quiz in a separate room; they rejoin the classroom for the skills assessment block once they finish.
Walk through each MCQ. For each: the right answer + why; the strongest wrong answer + why it's wrong; the doctrinal trap the question was testing. The debrief uses the quiz itself as the synthesis text for the module.
A 45-minute supervised drafting, negotiation, redlining, or damages-computation exercise tied to the module's central problem. The exercise runs as part of class participation, not as a discrete graded instrument.
Wrap; preview the next module's central problem; frame the doctrinal pivot. On the final-module Capstone of each semester, the bridge block becomes exam-prep orientation: rubric, time-budget guidance, study method.
Slide deck
Spacebar / arrow keys to advance. Press F for fullscreen. Click Print / PDF for handouts. PPTX export is professor-only.
Cases under review
Consolidating prior coverage. Re-read the holdings; the Capstone quiz draws here.
- McIntosh v. Murphy 52 Haw. 29, 469 P.2d 177 (1970) Promissory estoppel can take an oral contract out of the Statute of Frauds where the promisee has reasonably and foreseeably relied to substantial detriment, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement.
- Sterling v. Taylor 40 Cal. 4th 757, 152 P.3d 420, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 116 (2007) A memorandum sufficient under the Statute of Frauds need only state the essential terms with reasonable certainty; extrinsic evidence may resolve ambiguity in those terms, but it may not supply or contradict essential terms missing from the writing.
- DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Services, Inc. 271 So. 3d 11 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018) (en banc) Unilateral mistake supports rescission where (1) the mistake goes to a material term, (2) enforcement would be unconscionable, (3) the mistake did not result from inexcusable lack of care, and (4) the other party can be returned to status quo. A buyer's knowledge or silence in the face of an obvious error can defeat enforcement.
- Sherwood v. Walker 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (1887) A mutual mistake going to the substance of the thing bargained for, not merely to its quality, renders the contract voidable. Where both parties believed a cow to be barren and she proved fertile, the mistake went to the very nature of the bargained-for animal.
- Wood v. Boynton 64 Wis. 265, 25 N.W. 42 (1885) Mutual mistake as to the value, but not the identity, of the subject matter does not justify rescission. A sale stands when both parties were ignorant of the true nature of the thing and neither bore a duty to investigate.
- Quebodeaux v. Quebodeaux 102 Ohio App. 3d 502, 657 N.E.2d 539 (1995) Duress rendering a contract voidable requires three elements: an involuntary act by the victim, no reasonable alternative to the act, and circumstances induced by the other party. Threats that exploit a power imbalance and leave no realistic option satisfy the test.
- Webster Street Partnership, Ltd. v. Sheridan 220 Neb. 9, 368 N.W.2d 439 (1985) A contract entered into by a minor is voidable. The minor may disaffirm within a reasonable time after reaching majority. Necessaries are an exception, but housing is not a necessary where the minor could live with parents able and willing to provide for him.
Notes
The Module IV scored MCQ runs in the first block of this meeting. The skills assessment is a paired in-class negotiation that uses defenses (duress, undue influence, unconscionability) as negotiation leverage rather than as a casebook label.