[18] She repeated on cross-examination that she was busy and not paying attention to what was happening. She was at a distance and only saw them signing the paper. She was asked if she had seen Zehmer put the deal on the table before Lucy, and her response was, ”When he walked by, he wrote everything it was on paper, Mr. Lucy reached out and said, `Let`s see. He took it and put it in his pocket before showing it to Mrs. Zehmer. Their version was that Lucy continued to increase her offer until she reached $50,000. A ”de facto implied contract”, . or an implied contract in the strict sense arises when the intention of the parties is not expressed, but in fact an agreement that creates an obligation, implies or is suspected of their actions, or, as has been established otherwise, if there are circumstances which, according to the normal course of business and the general understanding of the persons, show a mutual intention to enter into a contract. A contract in which the parties exchange a promise for a promise is called a bilateral contract, while a contract in which one party makes a promise and the other party performs an action is called a unilateral contract. Our first major case continues to explore what it means to make a promise. When reading the court`s opinion, think carefully about how you would describe the facts or tell the story of what happened. Also consider the ”procedural attitude” of the case.

How did the dispute go? Who sued whom? What has happened so far? Who won at each stage and what did they get on the way to the cures? How does the Rhode Island Supreme Court resolve the case? The idea of giving a remedy to a person who has broken his promise appeals to most people. However, the ”unfavorable confidence” of the promisor (the person to whom the promise is made) in the promise must be reasonable and predictable to the promisor (the person who made the promise) at the time of his declaration. If the promettant has taken measures that he could not have foreseen, he is not obliged to keep the promise. Reciprocity of obligation: The agreement of both parties to be bound in any way. A promise may be made in words orally or in writing, or be derived in whole or in part from the conduct. Sometimes a so-called promise is just a joke. In the famous case of Leonard v. Pepsico, 88 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y.

1997), the court considered Leonard`s allegation that a ”Pepsi Stuff” advertisement represented a promise to redeem 7,000,000 Pepsi points for a Harrier Jet. Leonard submitted a purchase order, fifteen Pepsi points and a check for $700,008.50 to purchase the remaining points. Although the purchase order offered additional points of 10 cents each, the aircraft was not listed as an available reward. Leonard wrote in ”1 Harrier Jet” in the ”Item” column and ”7,000,000” in the ”Total Points” column. Pepsico returned Leonard`s submission, stating that the company took the photos of the Harrier Jet because of its comic effect. The court also dismissed the plaintiff`s lawsuit, saying: [5] W. O. Lucy, a lumberjack and farmer, essentially testified: He had known Zehmer for fifteen or twenty years and had known the Ferguson farm for ten years. Seven or eight years ago, he offered Zehmer $20,000 for the farm Zehmer had accepted, but the deal was verbal and Zehmer withdrew. On the night of December 20, 1952, at about eight o`clock, he took an employee to McKenney, where Zehmer lived and ran a restaurant, gas station, and motor yard.

There he decided to see Zehmer and try again to buy the Ferguson farm. He walked into the restaurant and talked to Mrs. Zehmer until Zehmer walked in. He asked Zehmer if he had sold the Ferguson farm. Zehmer replied that he had not. Lucy said, ”I bet you wouldn`t take $50,000 for this place.” Zehmer replied, ”Yes, so do I; you would not give fifty. Lucy said he would and told Zehmer to write an agreement to that effect. Zehmer took a restaurant cheque and wrote on the back: ”I hereby agree to sell Ferguson Farm in its entirety to W. O. Lucy for $50,000. Lucy told him to change it to ”We” because Mrs. Zehmer would have to sign it too. Zehmer then tore up what he had written, wrote the agreement cited above, and asked Ms.

Zehmer, who was ten or twelve feet across the counter, to sign it. Ms. Zehmer said she would pay $50,000 and signed it. Zehmer brought it back and gave it to Lucy, who offered him $5, which Zehmer refused, saying, ”You don`t have to give me any money, you signed the deal there by the two of us.” If a party makes a statement or promise that causes another party to rely on that statement in such a way that it is financially harmed by that trust, a court will execute the statement or promise as if it were a contract in place. The court does not have to find an agreement or consideration to enforce the promise as a contract, but it is difficult to prove that a statement was made without being recorded. Try to identify the essential elements or components of the legal meaning of the word ”promise”. Can you draw a diagram to show how these elements relate to each other? [24] On Sunday, the day after the deed was signed on Saturday evening, a social gathering was held at a house in the town of McKenney, where there were general remarks that the sale had been made. Ms.

Zehmer testified that on that occasion, as she walked past a group of people, including Lucy, who were talking about the transaction, $50,000 was mentioned, after which she stepped in and said, ”Well, with the high-priced whiskey you drank last night, you should have paid more. It was cheap. Lucy testified that Zehmer told her at the time that he didn`t want to ”hang on” to him or stick to the deal because he, Lucy, was too tight and didn`t know what he was doing, to which Lucy replied that he wasn`t too tight; that he was already stuck and that he went through it. Zehmer`s version was that he told Lucy, ”I`m not trying to say it wasn`t a deal because the price was too low. If I had wanted to sell $50,000.00, it would be a good price, in fact, I think you`d be stuck at $50,000.00. An altruistic witness said Zehmer told Lucy that ”he would let him out of the deal because he thought he was too tight, didn`t know what he was doing. Lucy said something like, ”I`ve been stuck before and I`m going to get through it.” An agreement is a manifestation of the mutual consent of two or more persons. A good deal is an agreement to exchange promises or exchange a promise for an exchange service or services. Sometimes the line between the occasional promise and the contractual offer is much thinner than we think. Companies need to be careful about what they offer to employees, partners and others, because even an innocent statement can be interpreted as a contract. Contact a local contract lawyer to discuss your agreements and other contract-related issues.

These legally enforceable promises can be made in writing or orally. In any case, the conclusion of a legally binding contract requires two fundamental elements: consideration and mutual consent. This chapter deals with the issues and problems associated with the consideration. We will discuss a mutual agreement in the next chapter. Now read the following sections of the reformulation (second) and think about how the legal use of the term ”promise” refers to our understanding of the word with common sense. [30] A mutual agreement or consent is, of course, essential to a valid contract, but the law attributes to a person an intention that corresponds to the reasonable meaning of his or her words and actions. If his words and actions, judged to a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to consent, it does not matter what state of mind is true but tacit. 17 S.J.C., Contracts, § 32, p. 361; 12 p.m. Jur., Contracts, § 19, p. 515.

[10] The source of the obligation implied in a contract is in fact, as in express contracts, in the intention of the parties. We believe that there was no mutual agreement and intent to promise between the plaintiff and the defendant to enter into a contract that is in fact implied for the defendant to pay the plaintiff for the maintenance of this horse. From the moment Kelly handed the horse to him, the plaintiff knew there was a dispute over his property, and his subsequent actions suggested that he did not know with whom, if any, he had a contract. After accepting the horse, he inquired about his belongings and first sent his invoices to the defendant and Dr. Strauss, the original seller, for a while. Our second main case deals with a different context in which the parties deny the existence of a promise. As you read the statement, ask yourself how the court assesses Zehmer`s alleged promise to sell his farm. A quasi-contract has nothing to do with the intentions or statements of the parties. The obligation is imposed despite and often frustrated by its intention.

.