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.

pickup will likely fit a larger range of contracts. Parties who want delivery can change<br />

the default rule by specifying delivery to the buyer. Thus, when a consumer buys<br />

goods online, the contract usually includes an express promise that the seller will<br />

deliver, either <strong>for</strong> free or <strong>for</strong> an additional charge.<br />

These default terms are sometimes developed by courts as part of the common<br />

law, but are often set by statutes and treaties like the UCC and the CISG. Realize,<br />

however that there are a host of state and federal statutes that also create obligations<br />

the parties did not expressly intend.<br />

Terms Implied by <strong>Law</strong> as Public Policy. While most implied terms are rooted<br />

in the parties’ presumed intent, some terms are implied in law <strong>for</strong> public policy<br />

reasons. That is, they are terms that courts or statutes put into the parties’ contract<br />

not to carry out their actual wishes in their own deal, but to en<strong>for</strong>ce some overarching<br />

policy, such as ensuring contractual fairness or preventing overreaching. Such terms<br />

are imposed even when it is clear that none of the parties had any intention of<br />

including them in the contract. Again, many of these implied terms are statutory (and<br />

there are many such statutory examples in UCC Article 2), but others developed from<br />

case law. <strong>Law</strong>yers in practice understand that these kind special rules are out there<br />

and tend to learn them in areas that impact their clients.<br />

_____________________<br />

Cases and Materials<br />

WOOD v. LUCY, LADY DUFF-GORDON<br />

Court of Appeals of New York<br />

222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917)<br />

CARDOZO, J.<br />

The defendant styles herself “a creator of fashions.” Her favor helps a sale.<br />

Manufacturers of dresses, millinery and like articles are glad to pay <strong>for</strong> a certificate<br />

of her approval. The things which she designs, fabrics, parasols and what not, have a<br />

new value in the public mind when issued in her name. She employed the plaintiff to<br />

help her to turn this vogue into money. He was to have the exclusive right, subject<br />

always to her approval, to place her endorsements on the designs of others. He was<br />

also to have the exclusive right to place her own designs on sale, or to license others<br />

to market them. In return, she was to have one-half of “all profits and revenues”<br />

derived from any contracts he might make. The exclusive right was to last at least<br />

one year from April 1, 1915, and thereafter from year to year unless terminated by<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

UNIT 20: IMPLIED TERMS 401

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!