Conditions taxonomy: module recap
Performance & Breach · Mar 22
Module quiz, debrief, and Adequate Assurance Letter drafting.
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.
Rules. R2d §§ 224, 225, 227, 237, 241, 250, 251, 261, 265; UCC §§ 2-601, 2-508, 2-609, 2-610, 2-611, 2-612, 2-615, 2-209.
Cases. Kingston v. Preston · Morrison v. Bare · Jacob & Youngs v. Kent · Khiterer v. Bell · Hochster v. De La Tour · McCloskey v. Minweld · Hornell Brewing v. Spry · Taylor v. Caldwell · Krell v. Henry · Transatlantic Financing v. United States · Angel v. Murray · AdBar L.C. v. New Beginnings.
The take-away. Once the writing is interpreted, Module VI asks three questions in order: Is the duty triggered (conditions, substantial performance)? Has it been discharged (repudiation, excuse)? Or did the parties end it by agreement (modification, discharge)?
Next class: Money Damages (Expectation)
_Remedies & Third Parties_ · Mar 23
Re-read Hawkins v. McGee with R2d §§ 344, 347. The Hairy Hand returns, this time as the lead case in remedies. The doctrine you read on day one for a holding now drives a damages computation. What does expectation cover that reliance does not, and why does the law default to the expectation measure? Come ready to answer. You may be called.