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.

emanded <strong>for</strong> those findings. When the amount has been determined, judgment will<br />

be entered in favor of Coastal, less payments already made under the contract.<br />

_____________________<br />

Review Question 2. The Algernon Blair court says that a “plaintiff may join a<br />

claim <strong>for</strong> quantum meruit with a claim <strong>for</strong> damages from breach of contract.” What<br />

does the court mean when it refers to a “claim <strong>for</strong> quantum meruit,” and why is that<br />

claim not considered a breach of contract claim?<br />

Review Question 3. The subcontractor in Algernon Blair apparently made a<br />

bad deal and got lucky that the government breached the contract. Why do you think<br />

a court would approve a remedy that gives the subcontractor anything at all?<br />

Review Question 4. Parties frequently enter into contracts with a profit<br />

motive, hoping to end up richer than be<strong>for</strong>e as a result of the contract. Indeed, the<br />

law of contracts greatly facilitates such business dealings. If you were a judge, what<br />

rule would you articulate as to what kind of enrichment is “unjust” rather than<br />

socially-beneficial profit seeking?<br />

_____________________<br />

B. Reliance<br />

SULLIVAN v. O’CONNOR<br />

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts<br />

363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183 (1973)<br />

The plaintiff patient secured a jury verdict of $13,500 against the defendant<br />

surgeon <strong>for</strong> breach of contract in respect to an operation upon the plaintiff’s nose. The<br />

declaration was in two counts. In the first count, the plaintiff alleged that she, as<br />

patient, entered into a contract with the defendant, a surgeon, wherein the defendant<br />

promised to per<strong>for</strong>m plastic surgery on her nose and thereby to enhance her beauty<br />

and improve her appearance; that he per<strong>for</strong>med the surgery but failed to achieve the<br />

promised result; rather the result of the surgery was to disfigure and de<strong>for</strong>m her nose,<br />

to cause her pain in body and mind, and to subject her to other damage and expense.<br />

The second count, based on the same transaction, was in the conventional <strong>for</strong>m <strong>for</strong><br />

malpractice, charging that the defendant had been guilty of negligence in per<strong>for</strong>ming<br />

the surgery. Answering, the defendant entered a general denial.<br />

On the plaintiff’s demand, the case was tried by jury. At the close of the<br />

evidence, the judge put to the jury, as special questions, the issues of liability under<br />

the two counts, and instructed them accordingly. The jury returned a verdict <strong>for</strong> the<br />

plaintiff on the contract count, and <strong>for</strong> the defendant on the negligence count.<br />

[Discussion of the negligence count is omitted.]<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

508 CHAPTER VIII: REMEDIES

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!