Est. 2018
The Case Law Compendium: United States Law
Today marks exactly one year to the day that I first started writing the ‘voluminous’ Case Law Compendium: United States Case Law, and its pretty incredible to think that so much time has already passed, particularly given that I’m not even midway through the book yet!
Anyway, needless to say my hard work continues on undaunted, and I’m hoping to share the first half of the criminal law section here in the next couple of weeks, so watch this space if you’re interested to learn more…
Australian Equity & Trusts
In a case embroiling both arms-length and personal agreements, the unavoidable overlapping of contract and equity are held to extensive scrutiny in a suit between corporations and individuals across two jurisdictions.
After an American surgical staple manufacturer entrusted their foreign sales to a New York salesman, the man whose reputation historically rested upon a handshake eventually used his informal approach to business to establish an overseas corporation, under which he manufactured his own version of the patented staples and promoted them to an Australian market via the prolific brand name used by his new business partners.
Upon discovery his underhand scheme, the now respondents sued for damages in the New South Wales Supreme Court under § 2-306(2) of the Uniform Commercial Code, which read that:
“A lawful agreement by either the seller or the buyer for exclusive dealing in the kind of goods concerned imposes unless otherwise agreed an obligation by the seller to use best efforts to supply the goods and by the buyer to use best efforts to promote their sale.”
While contesting that any sales accrued during the years accounted for were now held upon constructive trust for the respondents.
In the first instance, the court found that a fiduciary relationship had become evident when the respondents had entrusted their product in the appellant, therefore showing a unique vulnerability to his actions when working overseas, while under challenge before the Court of Appeal, the court supported the principle of a constructive trust and thus held accordingly.
Presented to the High Court of Australia, the question of trust relationships and contractual breach became central to the issue in hand, and so the court quickly noted that the contract rested upon verbal agreements and subsequent exchanges of correspondence, yet no legally binding agreements had been entered into; and so when examining the question of validity the court referred to Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams, in which the English Court of Appeal illustrated that a representation made during contractual negotiations could also be construed as a binding warranty, and so held that:
“The question whether a warranty was intended depends on the conduct of the parties, on their words and behaviour, rather than on their thoughts. If an intelligent bystander would reasonably infer that a warranty was intended, that will suffice.”
However the court also noted that in order for any implication of a warranty to sustain judicial scrutiny it must be:
And so moving on to the concept of fiduciary obligations arising from the heart of the working relationship, the court noted that in Reading v The King the English Court of Appeal held how:
“[A]‘fiduciary relation’ exists (a) whenever the plaintiff entrusts to the defendant property, including intangible property as, for instance, confidential information, and relies on the defendant to deal with such property for the benefit of the plaintiff or for purposes authorized by him, and not otherwise….and (b) whenever the plaintiff entrusts to the defendant a job to be performed, for instance, the negotiation of a contract on his behalf or for his benefit, and relies on the defendant to procure for the plaintiff the best terms available….”
Yet in vol. 25 of the University of Toronto Law Journal (1975) it also reads that in commercial dealings:
“[A] mere sub-contractor is not a fiduciary. Although his work may be described loosely as work which is to be carried out in the interests of the head contractor, the sub-contractor cannot in any meaningful sense be said to exercise a power or discretion which places the head contractor in a position of vulnerability.”
Therefore with little to warrant the existence of either a trust/trustee relationship or the presence of fiduciary duty with which to underline the machiavellian behaviour of the appellant, the court remitted the case back to the New South Wales Supreme Court with a view to an assessment of damages in favour of the respondents.
US Contract Law
A promise to pay while absent of any consideration may at first blush appear to be enforceable, however the eyes of the law see things in quite a different light, as was found in this rather bizarre suit between a clairvoyant and the administrators of an estate.
For reasons best known to themselves, the plaintiff and former client had somehow entered into a bargain, whereby a written statement in January 1898 expressed that:
“In consideration of business and test sittings received from Madame Sesemore, the clairvoyant, otherwise known as Mrs. Josephene L. Moore on numerous occasions I the undersigned do hereby agree to give the above named Josephene or her heirs, if she is not alive, the balance of her mortgage note which is the Herman E. Bogardus mortgage note of Jan. 5, 1893, and the interest on same on or after the last day of Jan. 1900, if my death occurs before then which she has this day predicted and claims to be the truth, and which I the undersigned strongly doubt.
Wherein if she is right I am willing to make a recompense to her as above stated, but not payable unless death occurs before 1900. Willard Elmer.”
And so upon his death, the plaintiff sued for recovery in the Hampden County Superior Court, while his various family members argued that the claim was void for want of consideration, after which the court dismissed the suit and the matter was argued again before the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
Here the court turned first to Chamberlain v. Whitford, wherein it had held that:
“An executed and past consideration is not sufficient to support a subsequent promise. It is not enough to show that a service has been rendered, and that it was beneficial to the party sought to be charged, unless it was rendered at his express request, or under such circumstances that the law would imply a request.”
While in Dearborn v. Brown the court had earlier held that:
“[T]he past performance of services constitutes no consideration even for an express promise, unless they were performed at the express or implied request of the defendant, or unless they were done in performance of some duty or obligation resting on the defendant.”
To which it had been evident that no money had been exchanged for the readings, nor any express terms set out during their meetings. And so when summarising the fruitlessness of the claim, the court finally relied upon Johnson v. Kimball in which it had later held that:
“An executed gift is neither consideration for an express contract nor a ground for implying one as a fiction of law.”
Thus the claim was one without merit and so the suit was again dismissed to the relief of the surviving parties and the dismay of a wanton clairvoyant, although one might have expected her to learn of the outcome prior to any litigation.
The Case Law Compendium: United States Law
July 20 2018
I am very pleased to announce that I have now completed the contract law chapter of the book, and so I can also share the contents here for those interested. There are a total of 47 cases available to read, and while it’s been a very insightful experience putting them all together, I genuinely hope they will help students get a quick grasp on the concept of contractual engagements, as well as the fundamental principles that frame them.
In all honesty contract law doesn’t have to feel like an overly complex field, and my conviction is that this section of the book (when it’s finished), will go a long way to dispelling the fears that many students doubtless carry into their Juris Doctor programs, and so without me droning on too much, below is the list of the historically notable contract-related cases included within the forthcoming Case Law Compendium: United States Law:
Contract Law
1. Alaska Packers Association v. Domenico
2. Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank of Jamestown
3. Ardente v. Horan
4. Austin Instrument Inc. v. Loral Corp.
5. Blatt v. University of So. California
6. Byers v. Federal Land Co.
7. Chicago Coliseum Club v. Dempsey
8. Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co.
9. Feinberg v. Pfieffer Co.
10. Ferrera v. Nielsen
11. Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co.
13. Groves v. John Wunder Co.
14. Halpert v. Rosenthal
15. Hamer v. Sidway
16. Hawkins v. McGee
17. Hill v. Gateway 2000 Inc.
18. Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co.
19. Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores Inc.
20. Hotchkiss v. National City Bank of New York
21. Jacob and Youngs v. Kent
22. Kirk La Shelle Co. v. Paul Armstrong Co.
23. Klocek v. Gateway Inc.
24. Leonard v. Pepsico Inc.
25. Lucy v. Zehmer
26. Mills v. Wyman
27. Murrow v. First National Bank of Hot Springs
28. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Tailored Woman Inc.
29. Neri v. Retail Marine Corp.
30. Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School District
31. Ortelere v. Teachers Retirement Board of City of New York
32. Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
33. Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.
34. ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg
35. Ricketts v. Scothorn
36. Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.
37. Shaheen v. Knight
38. Sherwood v. Walker
39. Spooner v. Reserve Life Insurance Co.
40. Stop & Shop Inc. v. Ganen
41. Sullivan v. O’Connor
42. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass’n v. Remington Paper & Power Co.
43. U.S. for Use and Benefit of Crane Co. v. Progressive Enterprises Inc.
44. Vokes v. Arthur Murray Inc.
45. Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
46. Wood v. Boynton
47. Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
The Case Law Compendium: United States Law
April 18 2018
Having recently completed this preliminary chapter of the book, I have provided a list of the cases covered in the civil procedure section for those that might be mildly curious. I would also add that it’s been a genuine pleasure reading and analysing these cases, all of which have helped educate me as to the intricate nature of State and Federal legalities, and I can only hope the readers will take as much pleasure in their reading, as I have in their writing.
Civil Procedure
3. Asahi Metal Industry Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court of California
4. Ashcroft v. Iqbal
5. Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Ass’n
6. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
7. Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’n
8. Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America
9. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation
10. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
11. Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin
12. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Co-op. Inc.
13. Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. v. Shute
14. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
15. Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank
16. Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S.
17. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
18. Colgrove v. Battin
19. Conley v. Gibson
20. Connecticut v. Doehr
21. D.H. Overmeyer Co. Inc. of Ohio v. Frick Co.
22. Davis v. Farmers Co-op. Equity Co.
23. Durfee v. Duke
24. Erie. R. Co. v. Tompkins
25. Fuentes v. Shevin
26. Gasperini v. Center for Humanities Inc.
27. Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp.
28. Grable and Sons Metal Products Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg.
29. Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y. v. York
31. Hanna v. Plumer
32. Hanson v. Denckla
33. Harris v. Balk
34. Henry L. Doherty and Co. v. Goodman
35. Hess v. Pawlowski
36. Hickman v. Taylor
37. Hilton v. Guyot
38. Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.
39. Hurn v. Oursler
40. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington
41. J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro
42. Kalb v. Feuerstein
43. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.
44. Kulko v. Superior Court of California
45. Livingston v. Jefferson
46. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
47. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
48. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson
49. Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co.
50. Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange
51. M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.
52. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
53. National Equipment Rental Limited v. Szukhent
54. North Georgia Finishing Inc. v. Di-Chem Inc.
55. Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.
56. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
57. Parklane Hosiery Co. Inc. v. Shore
58. Pennoyer v. Neff
59. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.
60. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
61. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
62. Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co.
63. Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co.
64. Shaffer v. Heitner
65. Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter
66. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.
67. Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.
68. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View
69. Swift v. Tyson
70. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
71. Woods v. Interstate Realty Co.
72. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
73. Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com Inc.
Books
26 November 2017
Today marks the commencement of my writing ‘The Case Law Compendium: United States Law’, the second instalment of ‘The Black Letter’ series of books, and my excitement is quietly simmering away as I begin preparing for the months ahead.
This compendium covers the principle law modules offered within leading American universities and Law Schools at Juris Doctor level, and will therefore include civil procedure, constitutional law, contract law, criminal law, property law and tort law. While I appreciate there has been a shift towards comparative and international law, particularly within educational institutions such as Harvard University, when similarly examining both Stanford and Yale, there appears an inclination to adhere to the core fields as shown above, hence I have decided to remain true to that ethos for simplicity’s sake.
While consciously adopting a linear approach, I aim to include around 385 case studies – well over twice the number found in ‘The Case Law Compendium: English & European Law’, and although there is perhaps obvious reason for this, particularly given the size and legal structure of American jurisdiction, I feel the end result will provide law students with more than sufficient insight into the mechanics of notable U.S. case law.
On a personal note, I am very much looking forward to this journey, and estimate that the book should be finished and available for purchase around summer of 2019, adding that I will consciously try to publish new case studies to this website where time permits.
In closing, I would like to say a heartfelt ‘thank you’ to those of you who purchased my first book (or plan to soon) and I sincerely hope that my efforts have been of valued assistance when working towards your chosen vocations.
Faithfully
US Contract Law
Inducement of consideration on the part of a promisee to a contract, whether written or oral, is an action that while not seemingly of benefit to the promisor, requires completion of the gesture by lawful means should natural justice be seen to be done.
In 1926, the appellant inherited a substantial amount of land from one of her sons, after which she aimed to use it to make amends for her late husband’s death, whose own will had disinherited four of his children, while the remaining four became beneficiaries to portions of his estate.
By way of reparation, the appellant sought the counsel of a number of those children, while on a number of occasions, explaining that she intended for the respondent to relocate from his home in Logan County, to a plot estimated at around 80-97 acres in size. This became problematic for the respondent as he was indebted by way of mortgage and could not just ‘up sticks’ and move, at which point the appellant took steps to reassign the mortgage to herself, so as to allow the respondent to take up residence on the land set aside for him.
This was duly executed until around a year later, when the respondent was served with a notice to quit by one of his brothers, whereupon he sought remedy by way of a conveyance from the appellant to support his right to title. Given that the appellant was illiterate, it became apparent that she had not taken the steps needed to complete such a disposition, but had instead relied upon her own insistence that she would bequeath him the land by way of a will, which was yet to be drafted.
When heard at the district court, the judge ruled in favour of the respondent, whereupon the appellant contested it within the Supreme Court of Kansas. Here, reference was made to s.32 of the Restatement Law of Contracts which reads:
“In case of doubt an offer is interpreted as inviting the offeree to accept either by promising to perform what the offer requests or by rendering the performance, as the offeree chooses.”
While s.90 of the same document reads:
“A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance, is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.”
Which translated that despite a failure to endorse her intentions through written expression, the appellant had by virtue of her repeated declarations, created an enforceable contract of disposition that by extension had led to the relocation of the respondent on the pretence that title was both implied and ultimately due through either deed or testamentary powers. It was this irreversible fact that led the Court to uphold the previous decision and dismiss the appeal outright on grounds that financial remedy would not be sufficient to the cause in hand.
