Remedies & Third Parties · May 3
Module quiz, debrief, Damages Calculation skills assessment, and exam-prep orientation.
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.
*Day 1 we read Hawkins v. McGee. A doctor promised a 100% perfect hand. He produced something worse than what the patient started with. The court asked the question that has shaped every class since: what is the legal value of a broken promise?
The year answered in seven moves.
Formation. A promise becomes a contract when there is offer, acceptance, and consideration. Lucy v. Zehmer tested manifestation. Hamer v. Sidway tested bargained-for exchange.
Enforceability. Some agreements the law refuses to enforce. Statute of Frauds. Capacity. Mistake. Duress. Unconscionability. The defenses framed when private ordering yields to public concern.
Interpretation. Words have meanings the parties intend and meanings the law assigns. Frigaliment asked what a chicken is. The parol evidence rule asked what counts as the contract at all.
Performance. Conditions order the sequence; substantial performance defines when enough is enough. Jacob & Youngs taught proportionality.
Breach and excuse. Anticipatory repudiation, material breach, impracticability, frustration. The law names which failures terminate the contract and which only adjust it.
Remedies. Hawkins comes home. The court awarded the difference between the promised hand and the delivered hand — expectation damages, R2d § 347. Then the filters: foreseeability (Hadley), certainty, mitigation, the disproportionality limit on cost-to-complete.
Third parties. Lawrence v. Fox. The doctrine reaches beyond the two original parties to those the parties intended to benefit, those to whom rights have been assigned, and those to whom duties have been delegated.
That is what the year has been. You can now read a contract case, identify the doctrinal question, name the rule, apply it, and argue both sides. You can also see — because we worked at it — that the rules have histories, alternatives, and critics. Doctrine is contingent. The law is what courts and legislatures have made of it, in particular places, under particular pressures, with particular consequences.
The exam tests deployment, not recitation. Bring the doctrinal map. Bring the phronēsis* the year was meant to train.