Contracts — US Study Note

01. Overview

Contract law sits at the heart of the first-year curriculum and accounts for a substantial portion of the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE). Its doctrinal architecture is built on deceptively simple questions: Was there a binding agreement? Was it supported by consideration or a recognised substitute? Was it performed, and if not, what remedy does the law afford?

The subject demands fluency across two distinct legal regimes. The common law — developed through centuries of judge-made doctrine and synthesised in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts — governs contracts for services and real property. UCC Article 2 governs contracts for the sale of goods and introduces a series of merchant-friendly modifications that frequently diverge from common-law baselines. Identifying which regime governs is, in almost every examination scenario, the first analytical step.

The classic formulation of a contract is an enforceable promise or set of promises. Three questions frame every contracts problem: (1) Formation — was a contract made? (2) Enforceability — is there a defence (e.g., statute of frauds, incapacity, unconscionability)? (3) Remedies — what did the promisee lose, and how does the law make them whole? This note works through each dimension, grounding doctrine in the principal landmarks every examiner expects candidates to know.

---

02. Historical Development

American contract law inherited its intellectual foundations from English common law but was rapidly shaped by domestic commercial necessity. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, American courts applied a formalist conception of contract: mutual assent was required, consideration was indispensable, and courts were reluctant to fill gaps or imply terms. Clarke v. Russell, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 415 (1799), one of the earliest Supreme Court opinions touching contractual obligation, illustrated this early emphasis on strict proof of agreement and the formal requirements attending valid undertakings — a reminder that even at the founding era, courts scrutinised the elements of a binding promise with care.

The mid-nineteenth century saw the emergence of classical contract theory, associated most powerfully with Christopher Columbus Langdell at Harvard, who treated contract doctrine as a science of objective rules derivable from precedent. Consideration doctrine became highly technical; courts asked whether there was a legal detriment, not whether there was economic fairness.

The early twentieth century brought a sustained critique. The legal realists — Llewellyn, Corbin, Fuller — argued that classical formalism obscured the relational and commercial realities of contracting parties. This reforming impulse bore fruit in two monuments: the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1981), which softened formalism by recognising promissory estoppel and a more contextual approach to interpretation, and the Uniform Commercial Code, drafted principally by Karl Llewellyn and promulgated in 1952, adopted in every state (with Louisiana's partial adoption) and designed to reflect mercantile practice rather than impose it from above.

By the latter twentieth century, the dominant scholarly conversation shifted to the economic analysis of contract (Posner, Cooter), which evaluated doctrines — efficient breach, the foreseeability limitation on damages — in terms of their capacity to allocate risk to the superior risk-bearer and to maximise the joint surplus of contracting parties. This economic lens now competes with relational contract theory (Macneil, Macaulay), which foregrounds trust, ongoing relationships, and the inadequacy of legal remedies.

---

03. Core Principles

Offer and Acceptance

A contract requires a definite offer — a manifestation of willingness to enter a bargain communicated to an identified offeree in terms sufficiently definite that acceptance would conclude the bargain. Advertisements are generally treated as invitations to offer, not offers themselves, because they lack the element of commitment to a specific party. The mirror-image rule at common law requires acceptance to match the offer exactly; a purported acceptance that adds or alters terms operates as a rejection and counter-offer.

Under UCC § 2-207 (the "battle of the forms"), a definite expression of acceptance or a written confirmation operates as acceptance even if it states additional or different terms — a fundamental departure from the mirror-image rule. Between merchants, additional terms become part of the contract unless the offer expressly limits acceptance, the terms materially alter the agreement, or the offeror objects. "Different" (contradictory) terms are typically knocked out under the majority approach, with UCC gap-fillers substituting.

Offers may be revoked at any time before acceptance (subject to exceptions: option contracts, firm offers under UCC § 2-205, and part performance of unilateral contracts). The mailbox rule (acceptance by post effective on dispatch) addresses the timing puzzle for non-instantaneous communications.

Consideration

The bargained-for exchange doctrine requires that each party's promise or performance be sought by the other as the price of the exchange. Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538 (N.Y. 1891), is the paradigmatic illustration: an uncle promised his nephew $5,000 if the nephew refrained from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards until the age of twenty-one. The nephew performed. The New York Court of Appeals held that forbearance from a legal right constitutes valid consideration — the nephew suffered a legal detriment, and that was sufficient regardless of whether the uncle received a tangible economic benefit. The case establishes that detriment to the promisee, not benefit to the promisor, is the operative test.

Key doctrinal corollaries include:

• Adequacy vs. sufficiency: Courts will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration (parties may make a bad bargain) but they will ask whether consideration is legally sufficient (nominal or sham consideration may fail).
• Past consideration: A benefit already conferred before the promise is made is not sufficient consideration because it was not bargained for.
• Pre-existing duty rule: A promise to do what one is already legally obligated to do lacks consideration. UCC § 2-209, by contrast, permits modification of a sale-of-goods contract without additional consideration, provided the modification is made in good faith.
• Illusory promises: A promise conditioned entirely on the promisor's whim (e.g., "I will buy your car if I feel like it") furnishes no consideration. Courts frequently invoke an implied obligation of good faith to save such arrangements.

Promissory Estoppel

Where formal consideration is absent, equity may enforce a promise under promissory estoppel (Restatement (Second) § 90): a promisor who reasonably expects reliance, and on whose promise the promisee does in fact rely to their detriment, may not be permitted to deny the promise's enforceability. The remedy "may be limited as justice requires" — often reliance rather than expectation damages. Promissory estoppel is both a substitute for consideration and, in some jurisdictions, a device to hold open an offer that would otherwise be revocable.

Statute of Frauds

Certain contracts must be evidenced by a signed writing: contracts for the sale of land, contracts not performable within one year, suretyship contracts, contracts for the sale of goods of $500 or more (UCC § 2-201), and contracts in consideration of marriage (the MY LEGS mnemonic). The writing need not be a formal document — a confirmatory memorandum, emails, or a series of writings that can be read together may suffice. Under UCC § 2-201, the merchant confirmation rule allows a written confirmation sent by one merchant to bind the recipient merchant who fails to object within ten days.

Parol Evidence Rule

A fully integrated written contract may not be contradicted or supplemented by prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements. However, parol evidence is admissible to: (a) establish a condition precedent to the contract's effectiveness; (b) explain an ambiguity; (c) show fraud, duress, or mistake; and (d) introduce a collateral agreement on a subject the writing would not naturally cover. Courts divide between the Williston (four-corners) approach — focusing on the writing itself to determine integration — and the Corbin approach — admitting extrinsic evidence to determine whether the parties intended complete integration.

Conditions

A condition is an event that must occur (or be excused) before a duty of performance arises. Conditions precedent must occur before the promisor's duty arises; conditions subsequent extinguish an already-existing duty. Courts favour construing ambiguous provisions as covenants (promising an outcome) rather than conditions (making a duty contingent) to avoid forfeiture. The doctrines of substantial performance, waiver, and estoppel may excuse non-occurrence of a condition.

Breach and Anticipatory Repudiation

A material breach discharges the non-breaching party's duty to perform and entitles them to damages. A minor breach permits recovery of damages but does not discharge the non-breaching party's duty to render counter-performance. Anticipatory repudiation — an unequivocal advance refusal to perform — permits the non-breaching party to treat the contract as immediately breached and sue at once, or to suspend their own performance and await the repudiation date.

Remedies

Three principal measures govern:

1. Expectation damages aim to put the non-breaching party in the position they would have occupied had the contract been performed. The formula — loss in value + other loss − cost avoided − loss avoided — captures the gain of the bargain. Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114 (N.H. 1929) ("the hairy hand case"), establishes the expectation measure in the medical-contract context: the surgeon promised a "one-hundred percent good hand," so the plaintiff's recovery was the difference between the promised hand and the hand as operated on, not the diminution from before the surgery.

1. Reliance damages restore the non-breaching party to the position they occupied before the contract was made by reimbursing expenditures made in reliance on the promise.

1. Restitution prevents unjust enrichment by requiring the breaching party to disgorge any benefit conferred by the non-breaching party.

Foreseeability limits consequential loss: damages are recoverable only to the extent they were a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach at the time of contracting. This limitation derives from Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341 (1854), which remains the foundational authority in American courts. The two-limb test — loss arising naturally from the breach in the ordinary course, or loss within the special contemplation of the parties — is stated in virtually every leading American contracts treatise and in Restatement (Second) § 351.

Additional remedies include specific performance (available where damages are inadequate, typically in land or unique-goods contracts), liquidated damages clauses (enforceable if the stipulated sum is a reasonable forecast of actual harm and the loss is difficult to estimate), and nominal damages for technical breach without proven loss.

---

04. Statutory Framework

| Instrument | Scope | Key Provisions | |---|---|---| | UCC Article 2 | Sale of goods | §§ 2-204 (formation), 2-205 (firm offer), 2-206 (manner of acceptance), 2-207 (battle of forms), 2-209 (modification), 2-314/2-315 (implied warranties), 2-601/2-608 (perfect tender / revocation of acceptance), 2-712/2-713/2-715 (buyer's remedies), 2-718 (liquidated damages) | | Restatement (Second) of Contracts | Common law (persuasive) | §§ 17 (mutual assent + consideration), 71 (consideration), 86 (promise for benefit received), 87 (option contract), 90 (promissory estoppel), 110 (statute of frauds), 131 (memorandum), 151–158 (mistake), 175–177 (duress/undue influence), 201–206 (interpretation), 224–229 (conditions), 237 (material breach), 261 (impracticability), 344–351 (remedies, foreseeability) | | Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN), 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq. | Electronic contracts | Gives legal effect to electronic signatures and electronic records in interstate commerce | | Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) | State-level complement to E-SIGN | Adopted in most states; harmonises paper and electronic contracting requirements |

The mixed contracts question — a contract for both goods and services — is resolved by the predominant purpose test in most jurisdictions: if the predominant purpose of the contract is the sale of goods, Article 2 applies in its entirety; if it is services, the common law governs.

---

05. Landmark Cases

Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538 (N.Y. 1891)

The foundational consideration case in American law. Uncle William Story promised his nephew $5,000 if the nephew abstained from drinking, tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until reaching the age of twenty-one. The nephew performed. After the uncle's death, his estate refused to pay, arguing there was no consideration because the uncle received no tangible benefit. The New York Court of Appeals rejected this, holding that consideration requires only legal detriment to the promisee — the surrender of a legal right suffices. The case is central to every treatment of consideration doctrine and is tested on virtually every bar exam.

Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114 (N.H. 1929)

George Hawkins sought surgery to repair a scarred hand. Dr. McGee repeatedly promised to make the hand "one hundred percent perfect." The surgery instead left Hawkins with a hand covered in hair from the skin graft. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the surgeon's repeated assurances constituted a contractual warranty of result, and that expectation damages were the appropriate measure: the difference in value between the promised perfect hand and the hand actually produced. The case introduces students to the concept of a warranty-contract in professional services and to the proper framing of expectation recovery.

Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341 (1854)

Although an English decision, Hadley v. Baxendale is so thoroughly absorbed into American contract doctrine — cited in every leading treatise, applied in every state, and codified in Restatement (Second) § 351 — that it functions as binding authority in practice. Hadley's mill was shut down when a crankshaft broke; he engaged Baxendale to transport the shaft for repair but failed to inform Baxendale that the mill would remain idle until the shaft was returned. Baxendale's delay caused extended loss of profits. The Exchequer Court held that recoverable damages are limited to those that arise naturally from the breach or that were within the reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting as a probable consequence of breach. Special circumstances must be communicated to attract the second limb. This foreseeability limitation prevents defendants from becoming insurers of consequential losses of which they had no notice.

Clarke v. Russell, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 415 (1799)

One of the earliest Supreme Court decisions to address contractual obligation, Clarke v. Russell is a reminder of the foundational importance courts placed on the formal elements of an agreement — including proof of the parties' meeting of minds and the terms of their undertaking — even at the earliest stage of American jurisprudence. Though the case arose in a different procedural context, its insistence on clear evidence of mutual assent prefigures the modern objective theory of contract.

---

06. Doctrinal Analysis

The UCC vs. Common Law Divide: A Comparative Doctrinal Map

The divergence between UCC Article 2 and common-law doctrine is most acute in four areas:

1. Formation. At common law, an offer without consideration is freely revocable. Under UCC § 2-205, a signed written offer by a merchant to buy or sell goods, with an assurance that it will remain open, is irrevocable for the stated period (not exceeding three months) without any consideration — a "firm offer." This is a significant commercial concession that has no direct common-law equivalent (though option contracts funded by consideration operate similarly).

2. Battle of the Forms (UCC § 2-207). Classical contract law's mirror-image rule produces harsh results in commercial practice, where purchase orders and order acknowledgements routinely contain boilerplate that diverges. Section 2-207 permits a contract to form despite a non-conforming acceptance, and deals with the fate of the additional terms. The 2003 revision to Article 2 proposed replacing § 2-207 with a simpler "knockout" rule, but the revised Article 2 has not achieved widespread adoption, leaving the original provision operative in virtually all states.

3. Modification. At common law, modification of an executory contract requires fresh consideration (the pre-existing duty rule). Under UCC § 2-209, modification of a sale-of-goods contract needs no consideration; the only constraint is the good-faith obligation. Where the original contract contained a "no oral modification" clause, oral modifications may still be effective, but may be waived.

4. Warranties and Perfect Tender. Article 2 implies a warranty of merchantability (§ 2-314: goods must be fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used) and, where the seller knows the buyer's particular purpose, a warranty of fitness for that purpose (§ 2-315). The perfect tender rule (§ 2-601) gives the buyer the right to reject goods that fail in any respect to conform to the contract — a stricter standard than the common-law substantial performance doctrine. However, § 2-508 gives the seller a right to cure, and § 2-612 (installment contracts) impairs the contract only if the non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the whole.

Promissory Estoppel: Substitute or Supplement?

The doctrinal status of promissory estoppel remains contested. The classical view (Williston) treated it as an exception to the consideration requirement — a narrow equity to prevent fraud by promisor. Corbin and later the Restatement (Second) elevated it to an independent basis of contractual liability. Grant Gilmore, in The Death of Contract (1974), provocatively argued that promissory estoppel was dissolving the boundary between contract and tort, transforming reliance into the true core of liability. Most courts today treat promissory estoppel as a genuine alternative claim available where a formal contract fails for lack of consideration, while limiting the remedy to reliance losses where expectation recovery would be disproportionate.

Expectation, Reliance, and Restitution: Hierarchy of Remedies

Lon Fuller and William Perdue's seminal 1936 article ("The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages") identified the three interests the law protects. Their framework, adopted by the Restatement (Second), remains pedagogically canonical. Expectation is the primary measure because it best vindicates the promisee's reasonable planning reliance on performance. Reliance is preferred where expectation is speculative (as in lost-profit claims for new businesses). Restitution is the floor: a party who has conferred a benefit on the other may always recover its value to prevent unjust enrichment, even where the contract is unenforceable (e.g., barred by the statute of frauds).

Foreseeability and the Hadley Principle in American Courts

American courts uniformly apply the Hadley v. Baxendale framework, typically through Restatement (Second) § 351. Lost profits are the paradigmatic consequential loss at issue. The requirement of reasonable foreseeability at the time of contracting — not at the time of breach — has important strategic implications: a defendant may escape liability for catastrophic downstream losses simply by demonstrating that the special circumstances were not communicated to it before the contract was formed. Sophisticated parties routinely invoke this doctrine by including contractual limitations on consequential damages (UCC § 2-719 expressly authorises such exclusion, subject to unconscionability).

---

07. Debates & Criticism

The Classical vs. Relational Debate

The most durable jurisprudential fault line in contracts scholarship is between the classical (or neo-classical) model — which treats contracts as discrete, fully specified exchanges between rational self-interested actors, properly enforced by strict application of agreed terms — and the relational contract model associated with Ian Macneil and Stewart Macaulay. Macneil argued that most commercial contracting occurs within ongoing relationships where cooperation, flexibility, and norm-following matter far more than legal enforcement. Empirical work (Macaulay's 1963 study of Wisconsin manufacturers) found that businesspeople routinely deviate from written contracts without legal recourse and rely on reputation rather than litigation to enforce expectations. Critics of relational theory respond that courts must have workable rules, and that relational norms are too indeterminate to generate consistent adjudication.

Economic Analysis and Efficient Breach

Richard Posner and the law-and-economics movement argue that the expectation measure is optimal because it makes the promisor internalise the full cost of breach, thereby inducing breach only when the promisor's gain exceeds the promisee's loss — a Pareto improvement. On this analysis, efficient breach is not morally problematic but economically desirable. Critics (including Daniel Friedmann and Seana Shiffrin) contend that this analysis degrades the moral force of promising, treats contracts as options rather than obligations, and fails to account for the dignitary harm of deliberate non-performance. The debate has practical stakes: it informs whether punitive damages should ever be available for breach (they generally are not, absent an independent tort) and whether specific performance should be routinely granted.

Promissory Estoppel's Remedial Uncertainty

Courts and scholars disagree about whether promissory estoppel should yield expectation or reliance damages. The text of Restatement (Second) § 90 says the remedy "may be limited as justice requires," suggesting a judicial discretion to award less than full expectation. Some courts routinely award expectation; others limit recovery to reliance outlay. This uncertainty undermines the predictability that contract law is supposed to provide, and practitioners must advise clients that the quantum of recovery on a promissory estoppel claim is genuinely uncertain.

The Statute of Frauds: Archaic or Essential?

The Statute of Frauds has been criticised as a rule that paradoxically enables fraud: a party who has genuinely performed an oral contract may find that the statute shields a dishonest defendant. Courts have developed equitable exceptions (part performance, detrimental reliance) that reduce the statute's rigour, but the result is a patchwork that lacks doctrinal coherence. The Law Revision Commission in England abolished most categories of the Statute of Frauds in 1954; the United States has retained them, a choice defended on grounds of certainty in high-stakes transactions and criticised as an anachronism in an era of electronic communications.

---

08. Comparative Perspective

American contract law is a member of the common-law family but diverges from English law in important respects. The codification of commercial law in the UCC has no direct English equivalent (the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 is narrower and more formalist). The Restatement (Second) has no English analogue; English contract law continues to be driven by judicial decision and academic commentary rather than a synthesising restatement.

Promissory estoppel is the starkest divergence. English courts, following Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 (Denning J.), developed promissory estoppel as a shield only — a defence against the strict enforcement of legal rights, not a cause of action in itself. American law, through the Restatement (Second) § 90, makes promissory estoppel a sword as well as a shield — an independent basis for contractual liability. This produces significantly broader enforcement of informal promises in the United States.

Consideration in English law retains a more formalist character. The rule that consideration must move from the promisee (not merely constitute detriment) continues to be applied. American law, influenced by Corbin, focuses on the bargained-for exchange and is less rigid about the movement-of-consideration requirement.

Civil law systems (France, Germany) do not require consideration for contract formation; offer and acceptance alone, manifesting mutual consent (consentement; Einigung), suffice. The German approach under the BGB §§ 145–157 conceives of contract formation as an exchange of declarations of intent and makes good faith (Treu und Glauben, § 242 BGB) a pervasive standard that fills gaps and qualifies the exercise of contractual rights — a function performed in American law partly by the UCC's good-faith requirement (§ 1-304) and partly by unconscionability doctrine.

CISG (UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods), ratified by the United States, applies to international sales of goods between parties in contracting states unless excluded. It adopts a formation regime closer to civil law — no consideration required, no statute of frauds — and its approach to the battle of forms (Article 19) differs from both the common-law mirror-image rule and UCC § 2-207. Parties doing cross-border deals should be aware that the CISG applies by default unless they affirmatively opt out.

---

09. Essay Approach

A high-scoring contracts essay demonstrates: (1) immediate identification of the governing regime (UCC or common law); (2) issue-spotting across all formation, enforceability, and remedies dimensions; (3) precise doctrinal articulation with appropriate authority; and (4) balanced analysis of uncertain points rather than assertion of one-sided conclusions.

Recommended analytical structure:

1. Governing law: Identify goods vs. services; apply predominant-purpose test if mixed. State the applicable regime expressly.

1. Formation: Offer → acceptance (mirror-image or § 2-207) → consideration or substitute (promissory estoppel). Address firm offers (§ 2-205) if a merchant's written offer is at issue. Address mailbox rule for timing.

1. Enforceability defences: Run through the statute of frauds (MY LEGS + UCC § 2-201). Consider incapacity, duress, misrepresentation, mistake, unconscionability, and illegality as the facts warrant.

1. Terms and conditions: Identify express and implied terms (including UCC implied warranties). Determine whether conditions precedent have been satisfied or excused. Apply parol evidence rule to any oral representations.

1. Performance and breach: Apply material vs. minor breach framework. Consider anticipatory repudiation and its consequences. In a goods case, apply perfect tender and cure.

1. Remedies: Lead with expectation (position as if performed). Quantify: (loss in value) + (incidental and consequential damages) − (cost avoided) − (loss avoided). Apply Hadley v. Baxendale foreseeability to consequential losses. Consider whether reliance or restitution is more appropriate on the facts. Address mitigation duty.

1. Conclusion: Identify the most likely outcome and acknowledge any genuinely uncertain issues.

---

10. Exam Traps

1. Goods vs. services: Failing to identify the governing regime is the most common foundational error. A contract to install custom software may or may not be governed by UCC Article 2 depending on whether goods or services predominate. Always apply the predominant-purpose test explicitly.

1. UCC § 2-207 — the battle of the forms: Many students default to the mirror-image rule. If the question involves merchants exchanging standard form documents, § 2-207 almost certainly controls. Remember: (a) a contract may form even with non-conforming terms; (b) the fate of additional terms between merchants follows the three-exception rule; (c) "different" terms are typically knocked out.

1. Consideration — the pre-existing duty trap: A modification promise that merely requires a party to do what they are already obligated to do lacks consideration at common law. But under UCC § 2-209, a good-faith modification of a goods contract requires no consideration. Candidates frequently apply the wrong rule.

1. Promissory estoppel — remedy: Do not assume full expectation damages. Section 90 states the remedy may be limited "as justice requires." Address the possibility of a reliance-only award.

1. Statute of frauds — the one-year rule: The one-year provision applies only if the contract is incapable of performance within one year, not merely unlikely to be completed within one year. A contract of indefinite duration is generally outside the statute because it could theoretically be performed within one year (e.g., by early termination).

1. **The Hadley limitation — timing of contemplation: Foreseeability of consequential loss is assessed at the time of contracting**, not at the time of breach. A defendant who learns of special circumstances only after the contract is formed does not thereby become liable for consequential loss flowing from those circumstances.

1. Anticipatory repudiation — the non-breaching party's election: The non-breaching party may sue immediately or await the performance date. But if they urge the repudiating party to retract, they risk being held to have waived the right to sue immediately. Address the election carefully.

1. Specific performance — the uniqueness requirement: Specific performance is available only where damages are inadequate. For goods, UCC § 2-716 expressly permits it where goods are unique or in "other proper circumstances" (courts have awarded it in long-term output contracts). Do not assume specific performance is automatic simply because breach is clear.

1. Liquidated damages clauses: These are enforceable only if (a) damages were difficult to estimate at the time of contracting and (b) the stipulated amount is a reasonable forecast of actual harm. A clause that operates as a penalty (designed to punish rather than compensate) is unenforceable at common law — an important distinction.

1. Hawkins v. McGee and the expectation measure: The correct expectation measure in Hawkins v. McGee is the difference between the promised result and the actual result — not the difference between the plaintiff's condition before and after surgery (which would be a tort/reliance measure). Candidates who confuse these produce incorrect damage calculations.

---

11. Q&A

Q1. Alex, a merchant, sends a signed written purchase order to Beth, a merchant, offering to buy 500 widgets at $10 each, stating: "This offer will remain open for 60 days." The next day, Alex mails a revocation. Beth receives the revocation and, a week later, sends a signed acceptance. Is there a contract?

A: Yes. Alex's signed, written, merchant offer with an express assurance of irrevocability constitutes a firm offer under UCC § 2-205 because the predominant purpose of the transaction is the sale of goods. A firm offer is irrevocable for the stated period (here 60 days) without consideration. Alex's attempted revocation is therefore ineffective. Beth's acceptance within the 60-day period concludes the contract. (Under the common law, by contrast, an offer without consideration is freely revocable, and Alex's revocation prior to Beth's acceptance would have terminated the offer — a critical regime-selection point.)

---

Q2. Carol performs painting services for David for one month before David, without cause, terminates the contract. Carol sues for reliance damages, restitution, and expectation damages. What is available?

A: All three may be available, but the measures interact. Expectation damages give Carol the benefit of her bargain: the contract price less what she saved by not completing performance. Reliance damages reimburse Carol's out-of-pocket expenditures made in furtherance of the contract. Restitution entitles Carol to the market value of any benefit actually conferred on David, independent of the contract price. Under the Restatement (Second), Carol may pursue any of these but cannot recover double compensation. If the contract price was below the market value of services rendered, restitution may exceed expectation — courts generally permit the non-breaching party to elect restitution to prevent unjust enrichment even where it exceeds the contract price, though there is some authority limiting restitution to the contract rate.

---

Q3. Ellen promises her niece Frances: "If you get into law school, I will pay your first year's tuition." Frances gains admission and turns down a scholarship at another school in reliance on Ellen's promise. Ellen then refuses to pay. Frances sues. Is there an enforceable contract?

A: Frances cannot establish a traditional contract because gaining admission to law school was a condition of Ellen's promise, not consideration bargained for — Ellen did not request that Frances gain admission as the price of the promise. However, Frances has a strong claim in promissory estoppel (Restatement (Second) § 90): Ellen made a definite promise, it was reasonable for Frances to rely on it, Frances did rely to her detriment (forfeiting the scholarship), and injustice can only be avoided by enforcement. The measure of recovery is uncertain: a court may award expectation (the cost of first-year tuition) or limit recovery to reliance loss (the value of the foregone scholarship). Hamer v. Sidway reinforces the principle that surrender of a legal right constitutes sufficient detriment where consideration is at issue — analogous reasoning supports the detrimental reliance finding here.

---

Q4. A miller delivers a broken shaft to a carrier for transport to a foundry, without disclosing that the mill will be idle until the shaft is returned. The carrier's negligence causes a five-day delay. The miller sues for five days of lost profits. May he recover?

A: This is the paradigm of Hadley v. Baxendale. Under the first limb of the rule — damages arising naturally from the breach — mere delay in delivery of a shaft does not naturally imply loss of profits, because a prudent mill operator might be expected to have a spare. Under the second limb — special circumstances communicated at contracting — the carrier had no notice that the mill was idle and entirely dependent on the return of this particular shaft. Accordingly, the lost profits are not recoverable. This result is confirmed by Restatement (Second) § 351: consequential losses beyond the contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting are not recoverable. The miller should have communicated the special circumstances; the failure to do so allocates the risk of loss to him.

---

Q5. A buyer contracts to purchase a specific vintage car, unquestionably unique. The seller later refuses to convey. Is specific performance available?

A: Yes. Specific performance is available where monetary damages are inadequate — classically, where the subject matter is unique and no substitute is available on the market. A specific, identified vintage car is paradigmatically unique; no sum of money can purchase its exact equivalent. The common law grants specific performance in these circumstances. Under UCC § 2-716, specific performance is available where goods are unique. The court has discretion in fashioning the remedy, but on these facts the inadequacy of legal damages is manifest.

---

12. Further Reading

Primary texts and authoritative secondary sources:

• Restatement (Second) of Contracts (ALI, 1981) — the single most important synthesis of American common-law contract doctrine; essential to every bar candidate.
• UCC Article 2 (NCCUSL/ALI) — read the statutory text alongside official comments, which courts treat as persuasive.
• **E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts** (4th ed., Aspen, 2004) — the leading academic treatise; comprehensive, authoritative, and readable.
• **Joseph M. Perillo, Contracts** (7th ed., West, 2014) — a rigorous doctrinal treatment drawing on Corbin's tradition; particularly strong on consideration and remedies.
• **Charles L. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal & Harry G. Prince, Problems in Contract Law** — the most widely assigned casebook; the problem sets mirror bar-exam question structures.
• Lon L. Fuller & William R. Perdue, "The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages", 46 Yale L.J. 52 (1936) — the foundational article structuring the expectation/reliance/restitution taxonomy.
• **Grant Gilmore, The Death of Contract** (Ohio State University Press, 1974) — provocative thesis that contract is dissolving into tort; essential reading for jurisprudential essays.
• **Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law** (9th ed., Wolters Kluwer, 2014), Chapter 4 — the economic-analysis perspective on contract formation and efficient breach.
• Ian R. Macneil, "The Many Futures of Contracts", 47 S. Cal. L. Rev. 691 (1974) — the relational contract counter-thesis.
• **James J. White & Robert S. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code** (6th ed., West, 2010) — the definitive UCC treatise; indispensable for Article 2 questions.

For bar preparation specifically:

• Themis, Barbri, or Kaplan MBE practice sets on Contracts — the MBE tests approximately 25 Contracts questions; practise UCC § 2-207 and consideration hypotheticals extensively.
• Review the NCBE Content Scope Description for Contracts — confirms the tested topics align exactly with this note's syllabus.