06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

As you read this unit, you may find it helpful to review the Restatement<br />

provisions on fraud and misrepresentation (§§ 159-164), duress and undue influence<br />

(§§ 174-177) and mistake (§§ 151-154).<br />

_____________________<br />

Cases and Materials<br />

ALABI v. DHL AIRWAYS, INC.<br />

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle<br />

583 A.2d 1358 (Del. Super. 1990)<br />

HERLIHY, J.<br />

[DHL was an express package delivery service. In Philadelphia, Mabayomije<br />

Alabi—who had regularly used DHL’s services <strong>for</strong> more than two years—allegedly<br />

put $15,000 in cash in a DHL envelope to be sent to London. DHL required customers<br />

to generally describe the contents of envelopes in a box on the shipping contract.<br />

Because DHL’s terms and conditions prohibited accepting or shipping cash, Alabi<br />

wrote “documents relating to school bills” in the box, and sealed the package be<strong>for</strong>e<br />

handing it over to DHL, which was otherwise unaware of its contents. Alabi was<br />

required to certify that “the article in the shipment is properly described and is not<br />

an item “which DHL has declared to be unacceptable” <strong>for</strong> shipment. Alabi inquired if<br />

the package could be insured <strong>for</strong> $15,000; DHL said that its maximum insurance<br />

value was $10,000. Alabi paid $76 <strong>for</strong> shipment and <strong>for</strong> the $10,000 in insurance.<br />

When the envelope arrived in London, it disappeared from the DHL storage area.<br />

Police were called in, but the package and its contents were never found. Alabi<br />

claimed that DHL was negligent, and demanded the $15,000, plus punitive damages.]<br />

DHL seeks summary judgment claiming plaintiff’s contracts with it are<br />

voidable due to his alleged misrepresentation of the contents of the envelope. A<br />

contract may be voidable on the basis of misrepresentation, be it a fraudulent or an<br />

innocent misrepresentation. Norton v. Poplos, 443 A.2d 1 (Del. Super. 1982);<br />

Restatement (Second) of <strong>Contract</strong>s § 164. As such, misrepresentation can be asserted<br />

as an affirmative defense to an action on the contract.<br />

The Restatement (Second) of <strong>Contract</strong>s provides probably the clearest<br />

discussion of the elements that need be shown to prevail when asserting<br />

misrepresentation as a defense. In order <strong>for</strong> a contract to be voidable, a party must<br />

show all four of the following elements: (1) that there was a misrepresentation; (2)<br />

that the misrepresentation was either fraudulent or material; (3) that the<br />

misrepresentation induced the recipient to enter into the contract; and (4) that the<br />

recipient’s reliance on the misrepresentation was reasonable. Rest. 2d § 164.<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

UNIT 15: ASSENT-BASED DEFENSES 285

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!