1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,520
Imagine you just you just bought
a brand new smartphone. 

2
00:00:03,800 --> 00:00:06,480
You power it up, you connect to 
the Wi-Fi, and right away the 

3
00:00:06,480 --> 00:00:10,120
screen pops up with like 30 
pages of dense text. 

4
00:00:10,120 --> 00:00:12,760
Oh yeah, the classic wall of 
legalese, right? 

5
00:00:13,120 --> 00:00:15,320
You do what everyone does, you 
just scroll straight to the 

6
00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:17,760
bottom and click that button 
that says I agree. 

7
00:00:17,880 --> 00:00:21,040
Of course, nobody reads. 
That nobody reads it, but 

8
00:00:21,080 --> 00:00:24,840
imagine that, you know, hidden 
on page 27 of that massive text 

9
00:00:24,840 --> 00:00:29,840
block was a clause stating that 
you literally just signed away 

10
00:00:29,840 --> 00:00:32,439
the deed to your house. 
Wow. 

11
00:00:32,439 --> 00:00:34,120
Is that actually legally 
binding? 

12
00:00:35,280 --> 00:00:36,320
I mean, welcome to the deep 
dive. 

13
00:00:36,320 --> 00:00:39,880
Today we are looking at this 
totally invisible web that 

14
00:00:39,880 --> 00:00:42,920
holds, well, basically the 
entire modern economy together. 

15
00:00:42,920 --> 00:00:44,560
It really does. 
It is everywhere. 

16
00:00:44,560 --> 00:00:46,320
It is. 
We're talking about the law of 

17
00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:48,840
private ordering. 
It is this system where 

18
00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:51,360
individuals essentially write 
their own mini laws. 

19
00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:53,720
Yeah, right. 
And the full weight of the state

20
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:55,800
will actually step in and 
enforce them. 

21
00:00:55,880 --> 00:00:58,440
And that smartphone scenario you
just described, I mean, that 

22
00:00:58,440 --> 00:01:01,480
cuts right to the absolute heart
of the tension we are going to 

23
00:01:01,480 --> 00:01:03,760
explore today. 
Yeah, it really sets the stage. 

24
00:01:04,040 --> 00:01:07,360
Because we are charting the 
entire life cycle of a contract 

25
00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:11,560
here, from the very first moment
two people even consider making 

26
00:01:11,560 --> 00:01:15,360
a deal all the way down the line
to a judge slamming A gavel and 

27
00:01:15,360 --> 00:01:17,600
ordering a remedy. 
Right, using the Contracts 

28
00:01:17,760 --> 00:01:19,360
engine blueprint. 
Exactly. 

29
00:01:19,440 --> 00:01:22,360
But as we navigate this 
blueprint, if you are listening 

30
00:01:22,360 --> 00:01:25,760
to this, you have to grapple 
with this massive contradiction.

31
00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:28,440
Which is basically that the 
rules of contract law. 

32
00:01:28,800 --> 00:01:31,640
They were mostly designed for a 
world that honestly doesn't 

33
00:01:31,640 --> 00:01:33,360
really exist anymore. 
Precisely. 

34
00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:36,320
I mean, classical contract 
theory assumes this flawless 

35
00:01:36,320 --> 00:01:39,440
market. 
It assumes 2 perfectly rational 

36
00:01:39,440 --> 00:01:41,480
strangers bargaining face to 
face. 

37
00:01:41,480 --> 00:01:44,160
Arm's length negotiation. 
Right at arm's length, with 

38
00:01:44,160 --> 00:01:47,040
totally equal power, just 
meticulously negotiating every 

39
00:01:47,040 --> 00:01:48,200
single term of. 
The deal. 

40
00:01:48,520 --> 00:01:51,400
But modern reality looks a lot 
more like your smartphone 

41
00:01:51,400 --> 00:01:52,440
example. 
It does. 

42
00:01:52,440 --> 00:01:55,440
We have these complex ongoing 
corporate relationships. 

43
00:01:55,440 --> 00:01:58,600
We have massive, just huge 
imbalances in bargaining power. 

44
00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:03,000
Yeah, consumers who routinely 
click I agree without reading a 

45
00:02:03,000 --> 00:02:06,200
single syllable of the document.
So if you are listening to this 

46
00:02:06,200 --> 00:02:09,120
right now and you are a law 
student or maybe a bar 

47
00:02:09,120 --> 00:02:11,960
candidate, or really just 
someone trying to understand how

48
00:02:11,960 --> 00:02:15,920
to think like a master lawyer, 
you basically have to hold 2 

49
00:02:15,920 --> 00:02:18,160
totally conflicting ideas in 
your head at once. 

50
00:02:18,160 --> 00:02:20,320
Which is definitely the hardest 
part of the first year of law 

51
00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:21,320
school. 
It is. 

52
00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:25,680
You have to absolutely master 
the strict foundational 

53
00:02:25,680 --> 00:02:30,480
classical rules because, well, 
that is exactly what the exams 

54
00:02:30,480 --> 00:02:32,280
will test. 
We will test those elements 

55
00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:34,320
rigidly. 
But you also have to understand 

56
00:02:34,320 --> 00:02:37,600
how modern courts use these 
flexible standards, you know, 

57
00:02:37,800 --> 00:02:41,040
concepts like good faith and 
contextual reality, just to 

58
00:02:41,040 --> 00:02:44,800
prevent those rigid rules from 
creating absolute chaos in the 

59
00:02:44,800 --> 00:02:47,080
real world. 
It is a really delicate 

60
00:02:47,080 --> 00:02:50,720
balancing act and before we can 
even worry about how a contract 

61
00:02:50,720 --> 00:02:55,000
might eventually breakdown or be
interpreted by a judge right, we

62
00:02:55,000 --> 00:02:57,040
first have to understand how to 
build it. 

63
00:02:57,040 --> 00:02:58,560
Right, we need the raw 
materials. 

64
00:02:58,560 --> 00:03:01,760
So let's start at the very 
beginning, the spark that 

65
00:03:01,760 --> 00:03:03,480
initiates the whole entire 
process. 

66
00:03:03,640 --> 00:03:06,320
If I just walk up to you on the 
street and say hey, I might sell

67
00:03:06,320 --> 00:03:08,800
you my car for $5000 if I 
haven't really done anything 

68
00:03:08,800 --> 00:03:10,960
legally binding there. 
No, you haven't. 

69
00:03:11,200 --> 00:03:14,440
So what is that invisible line I
cross where just mere 

70
00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:18,400
conversation suddenly becomes a 
legally binding offer? 

71
00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:22,440
Well, you cross that line when 
you make a manifestation of 

72
00:03:22,440 --> 00:03:25,720
willingness to enter into a 
bargain, and you have to do it 

73
00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:29,080
in such a way that a reasonable 
person would understand that 

74
00:03:29,080 --> 00:03:32,240
their yes is all that is needed 
to conclude the deal. 

75
00:03:32,480 --> 00:03:37,720
OK, so if I say I will sell you 
my 2015 Honda Civic tomorrow for

76
00:03:37,720 --> 00:03:43,120
$5000 cash and I literally toss 
the keys on the table between 

77
00:03:43,120 --> 00:03:45,160
us. 
Bam, now you have created an 

78
00:03:45,160 --> 00:03:46,760
offer. 
Because I gave you the power. 

79
00:03:46,840 --> 00:03:48,880
Exactly. 
You have literally handed the 

80
00:03:48,880 --> 00:03:51,120
power of acceptance over to the 
other person. 

81
00:03:51,120 --> 00:03:53,520
But notice the key phrase I used
there, which is that a 

82
00:03:53,520 --> 00:03:55,040
reasonable person would 
understand. 

83
00:03:55,160 --> 00:03:58,160
Oh. 
This brings us to the very first

84
00:03:58,160 --> 00:04:01,200
and honestly arguably the most 
important rule you must 

85
00:04:01,200 --> 00:04:04,680
internalize for any exam, which 
is the objective theory of 

86
00:04:04,680 --> 00:04:06,440
contracts. 
This is the one that always 

87
00:04:06,440 --> 00:04:09,240
tripped me up when I was first 
learning this stuff because if I

88
00:04:09,240 --> 00:04:12,440
make an offer but in my head I'm
just playing a practical joke on

89
00:04:12,440 --> 00:04:14,080
you. 
Like you are just completely 

90
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:15,480
messing around. 
Right. 

91
00:04:15,720 --> 00:04:18,560
Shouldn't my actual subjective 
intention matter? 

92
00:04:19,440 --> 00:04:21,399
Why would the law bind me to a 
joke? 

93
00:04:21,560 --> 00:04:25,640
Because the courts, they do not 
possess A telepathic X-ray 

94
00:04:25,640 --> 00:04:27,600
machine fairpoint. 
They really don't. 

95
00:04:27,600 --> 00:04:31,560
They cannot peer into your soul 
to discern your secret intent. 

96
00:04:31,560 --> 00:04:34,960
I mean, if the law relied on 
what people secretly meant in 

97
00:04:34,960 --> 00:04:38,240
their heads, every single 
contract dispute would just 

98
00:04:38,240 --> 00:04:41,640
evolve into one party claiming. 
Well, I had my fingers crossed 

99
00:04:41,640 --> 00:04:43,320
behind my back. 
Which would be a nightmare. 

100
00:04:43,320 --> 00:04:45,640
Commercial certainty would just 
evaporate overnight. 

101
00:04:45,680 --> 00:04:47,680
So the court kind of acts like a
fly on the wall. 

102
00:04:47,680 --> 00:04:50,480
They look entirely at outward 
manifestations. 

103
00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:53,440
They are looking at your words, 
your conduct, the surrounding 

104
00:04:53,440 --> 00:04:56,480
context, and they asked 
themselves, what would a 

105
00:04:56,480 --> 00:05:00,040
reasonable observer watching 
this entire interaction believe 

106
00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:03,280
the parties intended? 
So if you were joking, but you 

107
00:05:03,280 --> 00:05:05,360
sound completely serious to the 
rest of the world. 

108
00:05:05,480 --> 00:05:07,520
The law treats it as a serious 
offer. 

109
00:05:07,800 --> 00:05:11,200
Your secret intent is entirely 
irrelevant to the formation of 

110
00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:12,640
mutual assent. 
OK. 

111
00:05:12,640 --> 00:05:16,400
So we have the mutual assent 
piece down, we have an offer and

112
00:05:16,400 --> 00:05:19,880
we have an acceptance. 
But no, that isn't actually 

113
00:05:19,880 --> 00:05:22,120
enough to make a contract 
enforceable, is it? 

114
00:05:22,120 --> 00:05:24,920
No, it is not. 
Because if I promise my sister, 

115
00:05:24,920 --> 00:05:28,040
hey, I will give you my favorite
watch tomorrow for your 

116
00:05:28,040 --> 00:05:30,560
birthday. 
And then I just changed my mind.

117
00:05:30,760 --> 00:05:33,800
She can't take me to court and 
sue me for breach of contract. 

118
00:05:33,800 --> 00:05:35,840
She cannot. 
Even though we totally had 

119
00:05:35,840 --> 00:05:38,520
mutual assent, the law is not 
going to step in. 

120
00:05:38,720 --> 00:05:41,760
That is because your promise to 
your sister was what we call a 

121
00:05:41,760 --> 00:05:45,040
naked promise, right? 
It was just a gift, and the law 

122
00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:48,200
generally does not enforce 
promises to make gifts. 

123
00:05:48,800 --> 00:05:52,160
For a real contract to exist, 
that initial spark of mutual 

124
00:05:52,160 --> 00:05:54,320
assent needs fuel to keep it 
burning. 

125
00:05:54,440 --> 00:05:57,680
And in contract law, that fuel 
is called consideration. 

126
00:05:57,680 --> 00:05:59,480
Exactly. 
There must be a bargain for 

127
00:05:59,480 --> 00:06:01,640
exchange. 
Let's breakdown what bargain for

128
00:06:01,640 --> 00:06:05,080
exchange actually means in 
practice, because to a layperson

129
00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:07,960
it sounds like haggling over a 
rug at a flea market. 

130
00:06:08,400 --> 00:06:11,560
But legally it is far more 
mechanical than that. 

131
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:14,480
It is very mechanical. 
The mechanism of consideration 

132
00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:17,880
is entirely rooted in this 
concept of legal detriment. 

133
00:06:17,880 --> 00:06:20,760
Legal detriment. 
For a contract to be formed, 

134
00:06:20,840 --> 00:06:23,720
both parties must give up 
something they were not already 

135
00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:26,960
legally required to give up, or 
they must agree to do something 

136
00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:28,640
they were not legally required 
to do. 

137
00:06:28,920 --> 00:06:31,640
Let's ground this in a real 
story because I think it helps 

138
00:06:31,640 --> 00:06:34,680
students remember it. 
There is this legendary case 

139
00:06:34,680 --> 00:06:39,240
that every single law student 
encounters in their first year 

140
00:06:39,720 --> 00:06:42,360
and it perfectly illustrates 
this whole idea of legal 

141
00:06:42,360 --> 00:06:45,240
detriment. 
I am thinking of Uncle William 

142
00:06:45,360 --> 00:06:48,720
and his nephew Willie. 
Oh, the famous case of Hammer 

143
00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:50,680
versus Sidway from the late 
1800s. 

144
00:06:50,680 --> 00:06:52,760
That's the one. 
It is literally the ultimate 

145
00:06:52,760 --> 00:06:54,680
test of what constitutes a 
detriment. 

146
00:06:54,680 --> 00:06:57,000
So set the scene for us. 
What was the actual deal they 

147
00:06:57,000 --> 00:06:59,080
made? 
So Uncle William makes this 

148
00:06:59,080 --> 00:07:03,040
promise to his teenage nephew. 
He says look, if you refrain 

149
00:07:03,040 --> 00:07:06,800
from drinking liquor, using 
tobacco, swearing and playing 

150
00:07:06,800 --> 00:07:10,080
cards or billiards for money 
until you turn 21, I will pay 

151
00:07:10,080 --> 00:07:12,560
you $5000. 
Which, just to put that in 

152
00:07:12,560 --> 00:07:15,480
perspective, in the 1800s that 
was a massive fortune. 

153
00:07:15,480 --> 00:07:17,840
Oh, a staggering amount of 
money, life changing. 

154
00:07:18,040 --> 00:07:22,360
And the nephew, incredibly, 
actually does it. 

155
00:07:22,400 --> 00:07:25,160
He actually pulls it off. 
He behaves perfectly. 

156
00:07:25,160 --> 00:07:28,960
He restricts his behavior for 
years, and when he finally turns

157
00:07:28,960 --> 00:07:32,480
21, he writes a letter to his 
uncle to claim the money. 

158
00:07:32,640 --> 00:07:33,800
As you would. 
Naturally. 

159
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:36,920
And the uncle writes back, 
acknowledging the debt, you 

160
00:07:36,920 --> 00:07:39,680
know, saying he owes it to him. 
But he says he wants to hold on 

161
00:07:39,680 --> 00:07:42,360
to the money a bit longer to let
it earn some interest in the 

162
00:07:42,360 --> 00:07:45,200
bank. 
But then tragedy strikes. 

163
00:07:45,200 --> 00:07:47,000
Right. 
Unfortunately, the uncle dies 

164
00:07:47,000 --> 00:07:48,800
before actually paying him the 
money. 

165
00:07:49,080 --> 00:07:52,560
And this is where the uncle's 
estate, basically the executor 

166
00:07:52,560 --> 00:07:56,280
who is handling all of his 
finances after his death, steps 

167
00:07:56,280 --> 00:07:59,400
in and just flat out refuses to 
pay the nephew. 

168
00:07:59,920 --> 00:08:03,120
Their argument in court was 
fascinating, and it is exactly 

169
00:08:03,120 --> 00:08:05,280
how exam graders try to trick 
students. 

170
00:08:05,320 --> 00:08:07,440
How so? 
The estate argued that there was

171
00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:10,400
absolutely no valid contract 
because the nephew didn't suffer

172
00:08:10,400 --> 00:08:13,360
any real detriment. 
In fact, they argued giving up 

173
00:08:13,360 --> 00:08:15,960
drinking, smoking and gambling 
was actually good for. 

174
00:08:15,960 --> 00:08:18,080
Him like physically and morally 
beneficial. 

175
00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:19,760
Exactly. 
He benefited from the 

176
00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:23,040
arrangement, so they said since 
he wasn't harmed, there was no 

177
00:08:23,040 --> 00:08:25,800
consideration and therefore it 
was just an unenforceable 

178
00:08:25,960 --> 00:08:29,080
promise to make a gift. 
I mean honestly I can completely

179
00:08:29,080 --> 00:08:31,480
see the logic there. 
If you think a detriment means a

180
00:08:31,480 --> 00:08:34,159
harm, well the nephew wasn't 
harmed at all. 

181
00:08:34,320 --> 00:08:36,360
He was probably way healthier 
than all of his friends. 

182
00:08:36,480 --> 00:08:40,320
He probably was, but the court 
fundamentally rejected that 

183
00:08:40,320 --> 00:08:43,200
layperson definition of 
detriment right. 

184
00:08:43,360 --> 00:08:45,960
The court stated that it 
literally does not matter 

185
00:08:45,960 --> 00:08:48,120
whether the restriction was 
physically or morally 

186
00:08:48,120 --> 00:08:50,720
beneficial. 
What matters is the legal 

187
00:08:50,720 --> 00:08:52,560
reality. 
The legal right to do those 

188
00:08:52,560 --> 00:08:55,120
things, yes. 
At that specific time in 

189
00:08:55,120 --> 00:08:59,200
history, the nephew had a legal 
right to drink, smoke and gamble

190
00:08:59,200 --> 00:09:02,880
before age 21. 
By voluntarily restricting his 

191
00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:05,760
own lawful freedom of action in 
exchange for the uncle's 

192
00:09:05,760 --> 00:09:08,480
promise, he suffered a legal 
detriment. 

193
00:09:08,520 --> 00:09:11,320
So that restriction of freedom, 
that is the exact moment the 

194
00:09:11,320 --> 00:09:13,040
fuel was injected into the 
engine. 

195
00:09:13,280 --> 00:09:17,080
Yes, the nephew gave up a legal 
right and the uncle gave up 

196
00:09:17,080 --> 00:09:20,640
$5000. 
That reciprocal exchange of 

197
00:09:20,640 --> 00:09:23,200
legal detriments is the bargain 
for exchange. 

198
00:09:23,440 --> 00:09:27,280
It transformed a family promise 
into a binding state enforced 

199
00:09:27,280 --> 00:09:29,360
contract. 
This raises a really common 

200
00:09:29,360 --> 00:09:30,800
point of confusion for students 
though. 

201
00:09:30,800 --> 00:09:33,680
Oh definitely. 
If I am grading a law exam or 

202
00:09:33,680 --> 00:09:36,800
even just looking at a business 
deal in the real world, how 

203
00:09:36,800 --> 00:09:40,480
heavily does the law weigh the 
actual value of that detriment? 

204
00:09:41,120 --> 00:09:43,960
The adequacy issue. 
Yeah, like, let's say someone is

205
00:09:43,960 --> 00:09:46,440
just desperate for cash to pay a
medical bill, right? 

206
00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:51,280
And they agree to sell their 
multimillion dollar mansion to a

207
00:09:51,280 --> 00:09:57,520
buyer for say $100,000. 
A terrible, wildly unfair deal. 

208
00:09:57,520 --> 00:09:59,240
Right, just an objectively 
terrible deal. 

209
00:09:59,440 --> 00:10:02,560
Is that contract void because 
the consideration is just so 

210
00:10:02,560 --> 00:10:05,040
vastly unequal? 
This is perhaps the most 

211
00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:07,600
frequent trap students fall into
on exams. 

212
00:10:08,040 --> 00:10:10,560
They constantly confuse a bad 
deal with the lack of 

213
00:10:10,560 --> 00:10:12,920
consideration. 
Which are two very different 

214
00:10:12,920 --> 00:10:14,080
things. 
Very different. 

215
00:10:14,080 --> 00:10:16,520
The courts operate under what is
historically called the 

216
00:10:16,520 --> 00:10:19,320
Peppercorn theory. 
Meaning you can literally sell 

217
00:10:19,320 --> 00:10:20,960
your house for a single 
peppercorn. 

218
00:10:21,040 --> 00:10:23,840
Literally, yes. 
Courts generally will not 

219
00:10:23,840 --> 00:10:26,400
inquire into the adequacy of the
consideration. 

220
00:10:26,400 --> 00:10:29,480
They do not care if the exchange
is fair or market rate or 

221
00:10:29,480 --> 00:10:32,040
balanced. 
They are not financial advisors.

222
00:10:32,040 --> 00:10:33,920
They just look for the existence
of the bargain. 

223
00:10:34,080 --> 00:10:36,640
Exactly. 
They only look for the existence

224
00:10:36,640 --> 00:10:40,080
of a bargain for exchange. 
If you want to sell your brand 

225
00:10:40,080 --> 00:10:43,760
new Ferrari for a peppercorn, 
the law will let you, provided 

226
00:10:43,760 --> 00:10:47,600
it was a genuine bargain and not
just a sham transaction designed

227
00:10:47,600 --> 00:10:49,720
to hide A gift or defraud your 
creditors. 

228
00:10:49,800 --> 00:10:52,520
The court's job is not to save 
you from your own terrible 

229
00:10:52,520 --> 00:10:54,280
negotiating skills. 
No, it is not. 

230
00:10:54,440 --> 00:10:58,280
So a peppercorn works, but what 
happens when the timeline of the

231
00:10:58,280 --> 00:11:02,600
bargain gets scrambled? 
Because there is a scenario that

232
00:11:02,640 --> 00:11:05,400
always feels incredibly unjust 
to people when they're first 

233
00:11:05,400 --> 00:11:08,320
learning the law, and it has to 
do with heroism and gratitude, 

234
00:11:08,400 --> 00:11:09,840
right? 
Let's talk about the past 

235
00:11:09,840 --> 00:11:13,040
consideration trap. 
Past consideration is, legally 

236
00:11:13,040 --> 00:11:15,440
speaking, a complete oxymoron, 
right? 

237
00:11:15,600 --> 00:11:18,200
It is a phrase that graders 
absolutely love to hide in a 

238
00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:21,920
convoluted fact pattern just to 
test your comprehension of cause

239
00:11:21,920 --> 00:11:24,080
and effect. 
OK, here is the scenario for the

240
00:11:24,080 --> 00:11:26,240
listeners. 
You are walking by a raging 

241
00:11:26,240 --> 00:11:28,200
river. 
You see someone drowning in the 

242
00:11:28,200 --> 00:11:30,080
water. 
A classic law school setup. 

243
00:11:30,400 --> 00:11:32,600
Always a river. 
So without thinking of your own 

244
00:11:32,600 --> 00:11:35,920
safety, you dive in, You fight 
the current, and miraculously 

245
00:11:35,920 --> 00:11:38,080
you pull them to shore. 
You save their life. 

246
00:11:38,320 --> 00:11:42,200
It's very heroic. 
The next day, the person you 

247
00:11:42,200 --> 00:11:45,760
saved visits you at your house. 
They're weeping with gratitude 

248
00:11:45,760 --> 00:11:50,600
and they say I owe you my life. 
I promise to pay you $500 next 

249
00:11:50,600 --> 00:11:52,200
week as a reward. 
OK. 

250
00:11:52,680 --> 00:11:55,520
But then next week comes round 
and they refuse to pay you. 

251
00:11:55,720 --> 00:11:57,960
They just ghost you. 
You take them to court. 

252
00:11:58,040 --> 00:11:59,440
What happens? 
You lose. 

253
00:11:59,560 --> 00:12:01,400
You just lose. 
You lose completely. 

254
00:12:01,480 --> 00:12:04,320
I mean, your heart breaks for 
the rescuer, but contractually 

255
00:12:04,320 --> 00:12:07,040
they have absolutely no case. 
But why? 

256
00:12:07,760 --> 00:12:09,280
I mean, there is a clear 
detriment. 

257
00:12:09,680 --> 00:12:13,840
The rescuer risks their own life
and there is a clear promise of 

258
00:12:13,840 --> 00:12:15,720
money. 
It all fails because of the 

259
00:12:15,720 --> 00:12:18,080
timeline. 
The act of saving the person 

260
00:12:18,080 --> 00:12:20,920
happened in the past, right when
you dove into the water. 

261
00:12:20,920 --> 00:12:23,200
You did not do it in exchange 
for the $500. 

262
00:12:23,200 --> 00:12:26,160
The bargain didn't exist yet. 
You didn't yell out I'll save 

263
00:12:26,160 --> 00:12:27,880
you for 500 bucks. 
That would be a different 

264
00:12:27,880 --> 00:12:29,000
contract. 
Exactly. 

265
00:12:29,440 --> 00:12:32,840
Therefore, the subsequent 
promise to pay the money is not 

266
00:12:32,840 --> 00:12:36,920
supported by consideration. 
It is merely a naked promise to 

267
00:12:36,920 --> 00:12:39,360
give a gift out of gratitude for
a past act. 

268
00:12:39,520 --> 00:12:42,480
So the fuel has to ignite the 
spark at the exact same moment. 

269
00:12:42,920 --> 00:12:45,840
You can't put fuel in the tank 
yesterday and expect a spark 

270
00:12:45,840 --> 00:12:48,440
today to move the car. 
That is a great way to visualize

271
00:12:48,440 --> 00:12:50,240
it. 
When you are analyzing a fact 

272
00:12:50,240 --> 00:12:52,880
pattern on an exam, you must 
read chronologically. 

273
00:12:53,200 --> 00:12:56,400
Graders will intentionally write
sentences backwards to confuse 

274
00:12:56,400 --> 00:12:58,800
you. 
Like they will say, Bob promised

275
00:12:58,800 --> 00:13:01,280
to pay Jim because Jim had 
already painted the house. 

276
00:13:01,280 --> 00:13:05,720
Yes, if the detriment occurred 
before the promise was made, it 

277
00:13:05,720 --> 00:13:09,360
is past consideration and it is 
entirely unenforceable. 

278
00:13:09,600 --> 00:13:11,760
Taking a step back from the 
doctrine for a second, I think 

279
00:13:11,760 --> 00:13:13,920
we should ask why the legal 
system is built this way. 

280
00:13:13,960 --> 00:13:16,160
The policy rationale? 
Yeah, the policy. 

281
00:13:16,280 --> 00:13:19,880
Why demand this strange ritual 
of consideration? 

282
00:13:20,080 --> 00:13:22,600
I mean, why not just enforce 
every single promise people make

283
00:13:22,600 --> 00:13:24,280
to each other? 
It really comes down to a 

284
00:13:24,280 --> 00:13:27,280
fundamental policy choice about 
the use of state power. 

285
00:13:27,360 --> 00:13:30,160
OK, you have to think about what
a court really is. 

286
00:13:30,520 --> 00:13:33,640
The machinery of the state, the 
judges, the clerks, the 

287
00:13:33,640 --> 00:13:36,400
courtrooms, the sheriffs who 
actually enforce judgments and 

288
00:13:36,400 --> 00:13:39,720
seize assets. 
That is a massive, expensive and

289
00:13:39,720 --> 00:13:42,880
highly coercive apparatus. 
It takes a lot of resources. 

290
00:13:43,040 --> 00:13:47,920
It does, and society only wants 
to deploy that heavy machinery 

291
00:13:47,920 --> 00:13:51,400
for deliberate economic 
exchanges that actually drive 

292
00:13:51,400 --> 00:13:53,920
commerce forward. 
We want to encourage actual 

293
00:13:53,920 --> 00:13:56,000
business. 
Yes, we do not want to clog up 

294
00:13:56,000 --> 00:13:58,600
the court dockets with casual 
social promises. 

295
00:13:58,760 --> 00:14:02,120
We don't want lawsuits over 
broken dinner dates or retracted

296
00:14:02,120 --> 00:14:05,320
birthday gifts or family 
squabbles over who promised to 

297
00:14:05,320 --> 00:14:07,640
mow the lawn on Tuesday. 
Right, the courts would 

298
00:14:07,640 --> 00:14:10,240
collapse. 
Consideration acts as a 

299
00:14:10,240 --> 00:14:13,920
structural gatekeeper. 
It basically forces parties to 

300
00:14:13,920 --> 00:14:17,320
signal to the state, hey, we are
entering a serious commercial 

301
00:14:17,320 --> 00:14:19,960
transaction here, please stand 
by to enforce it. 

302
00:14:20,000 --> 00:14:22,920
OK, so we understand how a 
contract is formed, we have the 

303
00:14:22,920 --> 00:14:24,800
mutual ascent and we have the 
consideration. 

304
00:14:25,400 --> 00:14:28,520
But here is where the path 
diverges wildly for a law 

305
00:14:28,520 --> 00:14:30,040
student. 
Oh, this is the big one. 

306
00:14:30,080 --> 00:14:32,720
Yeah, not all contracts are 
governed by the same set of 

307
00:14:32,720 --> 00:14:34,280
rules. 
You can't just apply one 

308
00:14:34,280 --> 00:14:36,400
universal formula to everything 
you buy or sell. 

309
00:14:36,400 --> 00:14:39,960
No, you absolutely cannot, and 
failing to recognize which set 

310
00:14:39,960 --> 00:14:43,360
of rules applies is the single 
most fatal mistake a student can

311
00:14:43,360 --> 00:14:46,080
make on a contracts exam. 
It's an instant failure. 

312
00:14:46,240 --> 00:14:48,920
It really is. 
We are talking about the great 

313
00:14:48,920 --> 00:14:52,200
Divide here, the common law 
versus the Uniform Commercial 

314
00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:55,280
Code, specifically Article 2. 
Let's map this out clearly for 

315
00:14:55,280 --> 00:14:57,560
the listener. 
How does a lawyer or a student 

316
00:14:57,560 --> 00:15:01,800
reading a prompt know which set 
of laws governs the dispute 

317
00:15:01,800 --> 00:15:04,360
sitting on their desk? 
It is entirely based on the 

318
00:15:04,360 --> 00:15:06,360
subject matter classification of
the contract. 

319
00:15:06,480 --> 00:15:09,600
You just look at what they are 
trading, the common law, which 

320
00:15:09,600 --> 00:15:12,360
is, you know, the historical 
judge made law that evolved over

321
00:15:12,360 --> 00:15:16,480
centuries that governs contracts
for services, real estate and 

322
00:15:16,480 --> 00:15:19,240
employment. 
So if I am hiring a plumber to 

323
00:15:19,240 --> 00:15:22,520
fix my sink, or I'm buying a 
house, or taking a new job as a 

324
00:15:22,520 --> 00:15:25,000
store manager, all of that is 
common law. 

325
00:15:25,400 --> 00:15:28,080
Correct, but if you are dealing 
with the sale of goods, you are 

326
00:15:28,080 --> 00:15:29,720
no longer in the common law 
world. 

327
00:15:29,720 --> 00:15:31,880
You are operating under UCC 
Article 2. 

328
00:15:31,960 --> 00:15:35,040
And how do we define goods? 
The UCC defines goods very 

329
00:15:35,040 --> 00:15:37,800
specifically as tangible, 
movable things. 

330
00:15:37,800 --> 00:15:40,680
So a tractor, a shipment of 
tomatoes, a laptop, things you 

331
00:15:40,680 --> 00:15:42,120
can physically touch and move 
around. 

332
00:15:42,160 --> 00:15:44,400
Exactly. 
And the reason this distinction 

333
00:15:44,400 --> 00:15:48,720
is so critical for exam strategy
is that the UCC is not just like

334
00:15:48,720 --> 00:15:50,640
a slight variation of the common
law. 

335
00:15:50,840 --> 00:15:52,560
No, it's a completely different 
animal. 

336
00:15:52,680 --> 00:15:56,000
It is a fundamentally different 
philosophy of contract law 

337
00:15:56,200 --> 00:15:58,480
designed with entirely different
goals in mind. 

338
00:15:59,520 --> 00:16:04,200
If you apply UCC rules to a real
estate essay or common law rules

339
00:16:04,200 --> 00:16:08,280
to a sale of goods essay, your 
analysis will be entirely wrong 

340
00:16:08,440 --> 00:16:11,080
and the grader will simply stop 
reading your paper. 

341
00:16:11,720 --> 00:16:14,920
So how should a student 
proactively avoid that trap when

342
00:16:14,920 --> 00:16:18,080
they are just staring at a blank
exam page, feeling the panic set

343
00:16:18,080 --> 00:16:19,560
in? 
It has to be a mechanical 

344
00:16:19,560 --> 00:16:22,200
reflex. 
Your very first paragraph on any

345
00:16:22,200 --> 00:16:25,760
contracts essay must explicitly 
state the governing law and tell

346
00:16:25,760 --> 00:16:28,360
the grader exactly why. 
You literally write it out. 

347
00:16:28,440 --> 00:16:31,800
Word for word you write this is 
a contract for the sale of a 

348
00:16:31,800 --> 00:16:34,360
tractor. 
A tractor is a tangible movable 

349
00:16:34,360 --> 00:16:36,840
good. 
Therefore UCC Article 2 governs 

350
00:16:37,160 --> 00:16:39,920
or you write this is a contract 
for painting a building. 

351
00:16:40,240 --> 00:16:42,480
Painting is a service. 
Therefore, before the common law

352
00:16:42,480 --> 00:16:45,480
applies, you lock that lens into
place before you analyze 

353
00:16:45,480 --> 00:16:48,000
anything else. 
Let's demonstrate why that lens 

354
00:16:48,000 --> 00:16:50,560
matters so much by looking at 
the rules for acceptance. 

355
00:16:50,560 --> 00:16:53,560
Great example. 
Let's say I want to buy a plot 

356
00:16:53,560 --> 00:16:56,440
of land from you. 
So we are in real estate, 

357
00:16:56,440 --> 00:16:58,680
meaning we are under the common 
law, Yeah. 

358
00:16:58,920 --> 00:17:02,680
What happens if your offer to me
says I will sell you Black Acre 

359
00:17:02,880 --> 00:17:09,440
for $100,000 closing on Tuesday 
and I reply I accept but closing

360
00:17:09,440 --> 00:17:11,800
on Wednesday? 
Under the common law, you have 

361
00:17:11,800 --> 00:17:15,240
absolutely no contract. 
You are governed by what it's 

362
00:17:15,240 --> 00:17:18,400
called the mirror image rule. 
The mirror image. 

363
00:17:18,400 --> 00:17:20,480
Right. 
Your acceptance must match the 

364
00:17:20,480 --> 00:17:23,240
offer exactly, word for word, 
condition for condition. 

365
00:17:23,760 --> 00:17:26,680
By changing the closing day from
Tuesday to Wednesday, you did 

366
00:17:26,680 --> 00:17:29,200
not accept the offer. 
Even though I said I accept. 

367
00:17:29,280 --> 00:17:32,240
Even though you use those words 
legally, you rejected the 

368
00:17:32,240 --> 00:17:34,800
original offer and you created a
brand new counteroffer. 

369
00:17:34,800 --> 00:17:37,960
The original offer is dead. 
That seems incredibly strict, 

370
00:17:37,960 --> 00:17:39,720
right? 
But for real estate, I guess you

371
00:17:39,720 --> 00:17:42,760
want that level of precision. 
Every single detail matters when

372
00:17:42,760 --> 00:17:44,600
you are buying land. 
Exactly. 

373
00:17:44,600 --> 00:17:47,640
But what if we take that exact 
same strict logic, that mirror 

374
00:17:47,640 --> 00:17:51,200
image rule and apply it to 
modern businesses buying and 

375
00:17:51,200 --> 00:17:53,040
selling massive quantities of 
goods? 

376
00:17:53,040 --> 00:17:55,160
It would cause total economic 
gridlock. 

377
00:17:55,320 --> 00:17:59,840
And that is exactly why UCC 
Article 2 completely abandons 

378
00:17:59,840 --> 00:18:02,160
the mirror image rule. 
It tosses it out. 

379
00:18:02,360 --> 00:18:06,080
It replaces it with Section 2 
Two O 7, which is notoriously 

380
00:18:06,080 --> 00:18:08,320
known by lawyers as the Battle 
of the Forms. 

381
00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:11,240
The battle of the forms. 
This is where classical theory 

382
00:18:11,480 --> 00:18:13,640
violently collides with modern 
reality. 

383
00:18:14,000 --> 00:18:17,200
Can you paint a picture of why 
Section 2 two O 7 was so 

384
00:18:17,200 --> 00:18:18,280
necessary? 
Sure. 

385
00:18:18,600 --> 00:18:20,600
Imagine an automotive assembly 
line. 

386
00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:24,760
The manufacturer needs 10,000 
microchips immediately or the 

387
00:18:24,760 --> 00:18:26,720
whole factory shuts down. 
High stakes. 

388
00:18:26,800 --> 00:18:30,160
Right, they don't have time to 
sit in a parlor with quill pens 

389
00:18:30,160 --> 00:18:33,040
and negotiate A bespoke contract
with the chip supplier. 

390
00:18:33,040 --> 00:18:35,000
They just have a procurement 
officer click a button in their 

391
00:18:35,000 --> 00:18:36,240
software system. 
Right. 

392
00:18:36,920 --> 00:18:40,360
The buyer's computer generates A
preprinted purchase order, and 

393
00:18:40,360 --> 00:18:43,280
it has all the buyer's standard 
boilerplate language on the 

394
00:18:43,280 --> 00:18:46,000
back, usually saying something 
like seller provides a full 

395
00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:47,600
warranty. 
Because the buyer wants 

396
00:18:47,600 --> 00:18:49,080
protection. 
Exactly. 

397
00:18:49,360 --> 00:18:52,200
Now the supplier receives the 
order, they ship the microchips,

398
00:18:52,200 --> 00:18:55,240
and their computer automatically
sends back a preprinted order 

399
00:18:55,240 --> 00:18:59,320
acknowledgement, and the back of
their form says all warranties 

400
00:18:59,320 --> 00:19:03,000
explicitly disclaimed. 
So the forms are fundamentally 

401
00:19:03,000 --> 00:19:05,920
clashing. 
They are the exact opposite of a

402
00:19:05,920 --> 00:19:08,040
mirror image. 
Right, under the classical 

403
00:19:08,040 --> 00:19:11,040
common law, because the forms 
don't match perfectly, there is 

404
00:19:11,040 --> 00:19:13,440
no contract. 
The suppliers acknowledgement is

405
00:19:13,440 --> 00:19:16,400
just a counter offer. 
But think about the physical 

406
00:19:16,400 --> 00:19:18,840
reality here. 
The chips have already been 

407
00:19:18,840 --> 00:19:21,960
shipped installed into the cars 
and the cars have been sold to 

408
00:19:21,960 --> 00:19:23,120
consumers. 
Exactly. 

409
00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:26,200
The physical economy is moving 
way faster than the legal 

410
00:19:26,200 --> 00:19:28,840
paperwork. 
If the law declared that no 

411
00:19:28,840 --> 00:19:32,120
contract existed simply because 
the boilerplate terms didn't 

412
00:19:32,120 --> 00:19:35,560
match perfectly, nobody would 
have any legal protection in the

413
00:19:35,560 --> 00:19:37,640
modern supply chain. 
It would be chaos. 

414
00:19:37,640 --> 00:19:41,840
Absolute chaos. 
So UCC 2 two O 7 steps in and 

415
00:19:41,840 --> 00:19:45,600
says look, if the parties acted 
like they had a deal, we are 

416
00:19:45,600 --> 00:19:48,560
going to recognize that a 
contract was actually formed, 

417
00:19:48,720 --> 00:19:51,840
even if the acceptance document 
contains additional or different

418
00:19:51,840 --> 00:19:53,440
terms. 
Unless, of course, the 

419
00:19:53,440 --> 00:19:56,120
acceptance is expressly made 
conditional on the other side 

420
00:19:56,200 --> 00:19:58,360
agreeing to the new terms. 
Yes, that is the exception. 

421
00:19:58,840 --> 00:20:02,000
But generally, the UCC is 
stepping in to save the deal. 

422
00:20:02,640 --> 00:20:06,040
It recognizes the contract 
exists, and then it provides 

423
00:20:06,040 --> 00:20:09,720
this very complex set of sorting
rules to figure out which 

424
00:20:09,720 --> 00:20:12,840
boilerplate terms actually 
survive and make it into the 

425
00:20:12,840 --> 00:20:15,200
final agreement. 
The UCC is essentially a machine

426
00:20:15,200 --> 00:20:16,680
designed to keep commerce 
moving. 

427
00:20:17,040 --> 00:20:20,080
It hates letting a contract fail
over technicalities. 

428
00:20:20,080 --> 00:20:22,600
We see this exact same 
philosophy when it comes to 

429
00:20:22,600 --> 00:20:24,440
modifications, don't we? 
Oh, absolutely. 

430
00:20:24,440 --> 00:20:26,080
Let's do a common law example 
first. 

431
00:20:26,480 --> 00:20:30,120
Let's say I hire a contractor to
build a custom deck on my house 

432
00:20:30,120 --> 00:20:33,040
for $5000. 
Halfway through the job, he 

433
00:20:33,040 --> 00:20:35,240
realizes it's taking a lot 
longer than he thought. 

434
00:20:35,600 --> 00:20:38,200
He walks up to me and says, 
look, I won't finish this deck 

435
00:20:38,200 --> 00:20:40,880
unless you pay me 6000. 
He demands more money. 

436
00:20:41,000 --> 00:20:43,760
Right, and I'm desperate for it 
to be finished for a party I'm 

437
00:20:43,760 --> 00:20:46,760
hosting, so I just agree. 
I say fine when the deck is 

438
00:20:46,760 --> 00:20:49,160
done. 
Do I legally owe him that extra 

439
00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:51,480
$1000? 
Under the common law, absolutely

440
00:20:51,480 --> 00:20:52,800
not. 
You are protected by the 

441
00:20:52,800 --> 00:20:55,040
pre-existing duty rule. 
But why? 

442
00:20:55,560 --> 00:20:57,880
I explicitly agreed to the 
modification. 

443
00:20:58,120 --> 00:21:00,560
I said fine. 
Because a modification is really

444
00:21:00,560 --> 00:21:03,880
just a new mini contract, and 
every contract needs its own 

445
00:21:03,880 --> 00:21:06,800
consideration. 
The contractor was already 

446
00:21:06,800 --> 00:21:10,400
legally obligated to finish the 
deck for $5000. 

447
00:21:10,840 --> 00:21:13,280
Promising to do what he was 
already legally bound to do 

448
00:21:13,280 --> 00:21:16,720
cannot serve as consideration 
for your new promise to pay him 

449
00:21:16,720 --> 00:21:19,280
an extra 1000. 
So the law is actively 

450
00:21:19,280 --> 00:21:22,040
preventing him from holding me 
hostage mid project. 

451
00:21:22,040 --> 00:21:24,160
Exactly. 
It prevents extortion. 

452
00:21:24,160 --> 00:21:27,920
It stops parties from leveraging
some costs to demand more money 

453
00:21:27,920 --> 00:21:31,120
for the exact same work. 
But let's flip the scenario into

454
00:21:31,120 --> 00:21:33,320
the world of the UCC, the sale 
of goods. 

455
00:21:33,880 --> 00:21:37,800
Let's say a manufacturer has a 
contract to supply raw aluminum 

456
00:21:38,040 --> 00:21:40,360
to a buyer at a fixed price for 
three years. 

457
00:21:40,360 --> 00:21:45,000
OK, in year 2, some global 
crisis causes the market price 

458
00:21:45,000 --> 00:21:47,000
of aluminum to just quadruple 
overnight. 

459
00:21:47,320 --> 00:21:50,160
If the manufacturer fulfills the
contract at the original price, 

460
00:21:50,280 --> 00:21:52,160
they will go bankrupt. 
They'll be ruined. 

461
00:21:52,200 --> 00:21:53,680
Right. 
So they call the buyer and say 

462
00:21:53,920 --> 00:21:56,360
we honestly need a price bump 
just to survive this. 

463
00:21:56,360 --> 00:21:58,920
Yeah, The buyer agrees to pay 
more just to keep their supply 

464
00:21:58,920 --> 00:22:01,640
chain intact. 
Does that modification need new 

465
00:22:01,640 --> 00:22:04,920
consideration under the UCC? 
No, it does not. 

466
00:22:05,360 --> 00:22:09,000
Under the UCC, you do not need 
new consideration to modify a 

467
00:22:09,000 --> 00:22:11,000
contract for the sale of goods. 
Really. 

468
00:22:11,240 --> 00:22:14,120
Really. 
Article 2 recognizes that market

469
00:22:14,120 --> 00:22:17,640
conditions shift rapidly In the 
real world, all that is required

470
00:22:17,640 --> 00:22:19,560
for a modification is good 
faith. 

471
00:22:19,760 --> 00:22:22,080
Good faith, right? 
If there is a legitimate 

472
00:22:22,080 --> 00:22:24,880
commercial reason for the 
modification, and it isn't just 

473
00:22:24,880 --> 00:22:28,480
one party extorting the other, 
the modification is legally 

474
00:22:28,480 --> 00:22:31,160
binding without any new 
consideration. 

475
00:22:31,240 --> 00:22:35,400
It is so clear how the UCC just 
greases the wheels of commerce. 

476
00:22:35,480 --> 00:22:38,520
I mean, even when we look at the
essential terms required to form

477
00:22:38,520 --> 00:22:41,480
a contract in the 1st place, the
common law is incredibly 

478
00:22:41,480 --> 00:22:43,000
demanding. 
It requires definite terms 

479
00:22:43,000 --> 00:22:45,040
across the board. 
Right there is that acronym 

480
00:22:45,040 --> 00:22:48,560
students use to remember the 
common law requirements QTIPS. 

481
00:22:48,560 --> 00:22:52,920
Yes, QTIPS, quantity, time of 
performance, identity of the 

482
00:22:52,920 --> 00:22:55,200
parties, price and subject 
matter. 

483
00:22:55,400 --> 00:22:57,840
If you draft a real estate 
contract and forget to include 

484
00:22:57,840 --> 00:23:00,480
the price, the common law will 
look at that and say the 

485
00:23:00,480 --> 00:23:02,480
contract is void for 
indefiniteness. 

486
00:23:02,480 --> 00:23:05,880
But under the UCC, what happens 
if I order a massive shipment of

487
00:23:05,880 --> 00:23:09,160
widgets and I just forget to 
state the price on the form? 

488
00:23:09,320 --> 00:23:11,920
The UCC will step in and save 
the contract. 

489
00:23:12,560 --> 00:23:16,240
The only strictly essential term
under Article 2 is quantity. 

490
00:23:16,320 --> 00:23:18,200
Just the quantity. 
Just the quantity. 

491
00:23:18,520 --> 00:23:21,160
The court must know how many 
widgets you intended to buy, 

492
00:23:21,400 --> 00:23:23,760
because they can't invent a 
number out of thin air. 

493
00:23:24,240 --> 00:23:27,320
But if the quantity is there, 
the court will happily fill in 

494
00:23:27,320 --> 00:23:30,160
the gaps for everything else. 
They act like gap fillers. 

495
00:23:30,160 --> 00:23:32,600
Exactly. 
They will inject a reasonable 

496
00:23:32,600 --> 00:23:35,520
price at the time of delivery, a
reasonable delivery date, a 

497
00:23:35,520 --> 00:23:38,840
reasonable location. 
They use default rules to plug 

498
00:23:38,840 --> 00:23:41,240
the holes because they 
desperately want the deal to go 

499
00:23:41,240 --> 00:23:42,280
through. 
OK. 

500
00:23:42,280 --> 00:23:46,360
So we have built the contract. 
We know if we are operating 

501
00:23:46,360 --> 00:23:49,560
under the strict rules of the 
common law or the flexible rules

502
00:23:49,560 --> 00:23:53,080
of the UCC, We have mutual 
assent, we have consideration, 

503
00:23:53,360 --> 00:23:55,280
the deal is alive. 
It's running. 

504
00:23:55,440 --> 00:23:58,480
It is running, but what if one 
of the parties desperately wants

505
00:23:58,480 --> 00:23:59,920
out? 
What if they want to pull the 

506
00:23:59,920 --> 00:24:02,960
emergency stop lever? 
Now we are moving into the realm

507
00:24:02,960 --> 00:24:04,960
of defenses. 
The kill switches. 

508
00:24:04,960 --> 00:24:07,920
Yes, the kill switches. 
These are the legal mechanisms 

509
00:24:07,920 --> 00:24:11,040
that can stop the enforcement of
an otherwise perfectly formed 

510
00:24:11,040 --> 00:24:13,320
contract. 
And before we look at specific 

511
00:24:13,320 --> 00:24:17,400
defenses, we really need to 
clarify a vocabulary issue that 

512
00:24:17,400 --> 00:24:20,880
causes endless confusion in 
legal writing and on exams. 

513
00:24:20,880 --> 00:24:22,800
Oh, I know exactly what you're 
going to say. 

514
00:24:23,120 --> 00:24:25,760
The difference between calling a
contract void and calling it 

515
00:24:25,760 --> 00:24:28,360
voidable. 
Yes, it is a critical 

516
00:24:28,360 --> 00:24:31,000
distinction. 
A void contract is basically a 

517
00:24:31,000 --> 00:24:33,920
legal ghost. 
It never possessed any legal 

518
00:24:33,920 --> 00:24:37,120
life to begin with. 
It cannot be enforced by anyone,

519
00:24:37,200 --> 00:24:39,720
even if both parties desperately
want it to be. 

520
00:24:39,920 --> 00:24:42,680
Give the listeners an example of
a void contract. 

521
00:24:42,960 --> 00:24:46,240
A contract to commit a crime. 
If you hire a hit man right, and

522
00:24:46,240 --> 00:24:48,280
a hit man takes your money but 
fails to perform the 

523
00:24:48,280 --> 00:24:51,560
assassination, you cannot sue 
him for breach of contract. 

524
00:24:51,560 --> 00:24:53,240
You can't take him to small 
claims court. 

525
00:24:53,280 --> 00:24:56,880
No, the contract is void against
public policy. 

526
00:24:57,000 --> 00:24:59,400
The court will not even 
recognize its existence. 

527
00:24:59,440 --> 00:25:01,720
But a voidable contract is 
different. 

528
00:25:01,880 --> 00:25:04,800
Very different. 
A voidable contract is a valid 

529
00:25:04,800 --> 00:25:08,120
beating heart of an agreement. 
It is fully formed and legally 

530
00:25:08,120 --> 00:25:11,240
recognized. 
However, because of a specific 

531
00:25:11,240 --> 00:25:14,080
defense, one of the parties 
holds a special power. 

532
00:25:14,200 --> 00:25:16,280
They hold the kill switch. 
Exactly. 

533
00:25:16,400 --> 00:25:19,040
They have the option to cancel 
the contract if they choose to, 

534
00:25:19,240 --> 00:25:22,440
or they can decide to let it 
ride and enforce it. 

535
00:25:23,040 --> 00:25:25,360
The power rests entirely in 
their hands. 

536
00:25:25,360 --> 00:25:28,440
And one of the most famous and 
historically oldest kill 

537
00:25:28,440 --> 00:25:32,120
switches is the Statute of 
Frauds, which we often just call

538
00:25:32,120 --> 00:25:34,840
the SOF. 
Let's talk about why this rule 

539
00:25:34,840 --> 00:25:38,520
exists, because on its face, it 
seems to contradict the idea 

540
00:25:38,520 --> 00:25:40,120
that oral agreements are 
binding. 

541
00:25:40,440 --> 00:25:42,880
Well, the general rule in law is
that oral contracts are 

542
00:25:42,880 --> 00:25:45,760
perfectly valid. 
If you and I verbally agree to a

543
00:25:45,760 --> 00:25:49,160
deal, we have a contract. 
The problem is proving it in 

544
00:25:49,160 --> 00:25:52,120
court, right? 
The Statute of Frauds dates back

545
00:25:52,120 --> 00:25:54,400
to the English Parliament in 
1677. 

546
00:25:54,720 --> 00:25:58,040
It was literally titled An Act 
for Prevention of Frauds and 

547
00:25:58,040 --> 00:26:00,320
Perjuries. 
Because if it's just your word 

548
00:26:00,320 --> 00:26:03,040
against mine, people will just 
lie on the witness stand to win 

549
00:26:03,040 --> 00:26:04,080
the money. 
Exactly. 

550
00:26:04,280 --> 00:26:07,120
The lawmakers recognize that 
certain types of contracts are 

551
00:26:07,120 --> 00:26:09,960
of such high value or they last 
for such a long time that 

552
00:26:09,960 --> 00:26:13,040
people's memories will naturally
fade, or they will be highly 

553
00:26:13,040 --> 00:26:14,600
motivated to just commit 
perjury. 

554
00:26:14,720 --> 00:26:16,480
So they demand a writing. 
Right. 

555
00:26:16,920 --> 00:26:19,760
The rule dictates that for these
specific categories of 

556
00:26:19,760 --> 00:26:22,480
contracts, we simply will not 
enforce them unless there is 

557
00:26:22,480 --> 00:26:25,040
some sort of writing signed by 
the party against whom 

558
00:26:25,040 --> 00:26:27,480
enforcement is sought that 
actually proves the deal was 

559
00:26:27,480 --> 00:26:29,440
made. 
And law students memorize these 

560
00:26:29,440 --> 00:26:34,920
specific categories using the 
acronym MI LEGS MYLEGS. 

561
00:26:34,960 --> 00:26:40,680
Right marriage year land 
executor goods over a certain 

562
00:26:40,680 --> 00:26:44,920
dollar amount which is typically
$500 and surety ship which is 

563
00:26:44,920 --> 00:26:46,920
promising to pay the debt of 
another person. 

564
00:26:47,400 --> 00:26:49,520
Let's talk exam strategy for a 
moment here, because you 

565
00:26:49,520 --> 00:26:51,760
mentioned earlier how graders 
react to this acronym. 

566
00:26:51,880 --> 00:26:55,040
Oh this is so important. 
If you spot a statute of frauds 

567
00:26:55,040 --> 00:26:58,520
issue on an exam fact pattern, 
the absolute worst thing you can

568
00:26:58,520 --> 00:27:01,960
do is write out the entire 
Myleg's acronym and explain 

569
00:27:01,960 --> 00:27:04,160
every single category. 
Like doing a data dump. 

570
00:27:04,480 --> 00:27:07,680
Yes, if the essay is about a 
dispute over selling a piece of 

571
00:27:07,680 --> 00:27:10,680
real estate, do not waste a 
paragraph explaining what an 

572
00:27:10,680 --> 00:27:12,720
executor is. 
Because it just proves you 

573
00:27:12,720 --> 00:27:14,600
memorized an outline, not that 
you actually know how to 

574
00:27:14,600 --> 00:27:16,920
practice law. 
It wastes your precious time and

575
00:27:16,920 --> 00:27:20,760
it acted annoys the greater. 
Only analyze the specific prong 

576
00:27:20,760 --> 00:27:23,640
that the facts trigger. 
And Speaking of triggers, the 

577
00:27:23,640 --> 00:27:27,560
one year provision of the 
Statute of Frauds, the why in my

578
00:27:27,560 --> 00:27:31,080
legs is perhaps the deadliest 
trap in all of contract law 

579
00:27:31,080 --> 00:27:33,440
testing. 
It destroys students every 

580
00:27:33,440 --> 00:27:36,640
single time because the rule is 
incredibly counterintuitive. 

581
00:27:36,760 --> 00:27:39,040
Let's unpack it using a classic 
hypothetical. 

582
00:27:39,040 --> 00:27:40,640
Let's call it the Allen Betty 
Hypo. 

583
00:27:40,680 --> 00:27:43,760
OK, let's hear it. 
So Al is an elderly gentleman. 

584
00:27:44,400 --> 00:27:47,440
His health is declining and he 
needs around the clock care. 

585
00:27:48,040 --> 00:27:50,640
He approaches his neighbor 
Betty, who is a nurse. 

586
00:27:51,200 --> 00:27:53,680
Al says to her. 
Betty, if you agree to take care

587
00:27:53,680 --> 00:27:56,840
of me for the rest of my life, I
promise to leave you my entire 

588
00:27:56,840 --> 00:27:59,240
estate when I die. 
And Betty agrees. 

589
00:27:59,240 --> 00:28:01,680
Betty agrees. 
They shake hands, but there is 

590
00:28:01,720 --> 00:28:03,920
absolutely no written 
documentation. 

591
00:28:04,040 --> 00:28:08,080
So it's a purely oral agreement.
Yes, Betty moves in. 

592
00:28:08,240 --> 00:28:12,160
She takes meticulous care of Al 
for two solid years and then 

593
00:28:12,160 --> 00:28:15,240
unfortunately Al passes away. 
Betty goes to the executor of 

594
00:28:15,240 --> 00:28:19,200
AL's estate and says Al promised
me the house for my caretaking. 

595
00:28:19,840 --> 00:28:22,040
The estate refuses to hand over 
the deed. 

596
00:28:22,400 --> 00:28:25,080
They argue look, Betty worked 
for two years. 

597
00:28:25,360 --> 00:28:26,880
Two years is longer than one 
year. 

598
00:28:27,160 --> 00:28:30,080
Therefore, this contract falls 
under the Statute of Frauds. 

599
00:28:30,400 --> 00:28:33,160
Since it was oral, it is 
unenforceable and you get 

600
00:28:33,160 --> 00:28:34,760
nothing. 
And when a student reads those 

601
00:28:34,760 --> 00:28:37,440
facts on an exam, they see the 
words two years. 

602
00:28:37,440 --> 00:28:40,360
Their brain immediately lights 
up and they write exactly what 

603
00:28:40,360 --> 00:28:43,800
the estate argued the contract 
could not be performed within a 

604
00:28:43,800 --> 00:28:47,080
year, so it violates the SOF. 
But they are completely, 

605
00:28:47,080 --> 00:28:49,400
fundamentally wrong. 
Why? 

606
00:28:49,560 --> 00:28:52,560
Because the rule is not about 
how long performance actually 

607
00:28:52,560 --> 00:28:54,760
took in hindsight, it's. 
Not about looking backward. 

608
00:28:54,760 --> 00:28:57,320
No. 
The rule asks a very specific 

609
00:28:57,320 --> 00:29:01,160
hypothetical question. 
At the exact moment the contract

610
00:29:01,160 --> 00:29:04,240
was formed, was it logically 
impossible for the contract to 

611
00:29:04,240 --> 00:29:05,800
be fully completed within one 
year? 

612
00:29:05,880 --> 00:29:08,720
And in AL's case. 
Al promised to pay for care for 

613
00:29:08,720 --> 00:29:11,080
the rest of his life. 
Al was elderly. 

614
00:29:11,080 --> 00:29:13,280
He could have suffered a heart 
attack the very next morning. 

615
00:29:13,560 --> 00:29:16,160
He could have walked out his 
front door and been hit by a bus

616
00:29:16,160 --> 00:29:19,040
a week later. 
It is a morbid analysis, I know,

617
00:29:19,080 --> 00:29:21,560
but legally it is the only thing
that matters. 

618
00:29:21,720 --> 00:29:23,200
It is the only thing that 
matters. 

619
00:29:23,480 --> 00:29:26,680
Because it was physically 
possible for AL's life to end 

620
00:29:26,680 --> 00:29:29,800
within a week of making the 
promise, it was logically 

621
00:29:29,800 --> 00:29:33,240
possible for the contract to be 
fully performed within one year,

622
00:29:33,280 --> 00:29:35,560
right? 
And because it was possible, it 

623
00:29:35,560 --> 00:29:38,680
does not fall under the one year
provision of the Statute of 

624
00:29:38,680 --> 00:29:40,960
Frauds. 
Which means the oral contract is

625
00:29:40,960 --> 00:29:44,240
perfectly valid, the kill switch
fails, and Betty gets the 

626
00:29:44,240 --> 00:29:45,360
estate. 
Exactly. 

627
00:29:45,680 --> 00:29:48,880
Courts generally dislike the 
Statute of Frauds because it is 

628
00:29:48,880 --> 00:29:52,160
so often used by dishonest 
people to escape legitimate oral

629
00:29:52,160 --> 00:29:55,120
agreements. 
So courts will interpret the one

630
00:29:55,120 --> 00:29:58,360
year rule as narrowly as 
mathematically possible just to 

631
00:29:58,360 --> 00:30:00,840
keep contracts enforceable. 
Let's look at a different kind 

632
00:30:00,840 --> 00:30:03,720
of kill switch, one that delves 
into psychology, mental 

633
00:30:03,720 --> 00:30:06,000
incapacity. 
This is a really interesting 

634
00:30:06,000 --> 00:30:07,800
one. 
The foundational presumption in 

635
00:30:07,800 --> 00:30:13,000
law is that adult human beings 
are competent to make deals, but

636
00:30:13,000 --> 00:30:16,160
if a party lacks mental 
capacity, their contracts are 

637
00:30:16,160 --> 00:30:19,280
voidable at their option. 
How courts determine that 

638
00:30:19,280 --> 00:30:21,840
capacity has evolved 
significantly over time, hasn't 

639
00:30:21,840 --> 00:30:24,000
it? 
It is a fascinating evolution 

640
00:30:24,000 --> 00:30:27,320
that really tracks society's 
growing understanding of human 

641
00:30:27,320 --> 00:30:31,200
psychology. 
We have moved from a very rigid,

642
00:30:31,360 --> 00:30:35,760
purely formalistic test to a 
much more nuanced 1 today. 

643
00:30:36,000 --> 00:30:40,120
The traditional test found in 
the Restatement section 151-A is

644
00:30:40,120 --> 00:30:43,000
the cognitive test. 
Right, The cognitive test is 

645
00:30:43,000 --> 00:30:46,360
incredibly strict. 
Under the standard, you can only

646
00:30:46,360 --> 00:30:49,520
void a contract if you were 
literally unable to understand 

647
00:30:49,520 --> 00:30:51,760
the nature and consequences of 
the transaction. 

648
00:30:51,760 --> 00:30:53,240
Well, you didn't even know what 
you were doing. 

649
00:30:53,240 --> 00:30:55,320
Exactly. 
You essentially had to be so 

650
00:30:55,320 --> 00:30:58,000
cognitively disabled that you 
didn't know what a contract was,

651
00:30:58,000 --> 00:31:00,520
or you didn't understand the 
physical reality of what you 

652
00:31:00,520 --> 00:31:03,000
were selling. 
But modern psychology revealed a

653
00:31:03,040 --> 00:31:06,520
massive blind spot in that rule.
It showed that people can 

654
00:31:06,520 --> 00:31:08,160
perfectly understand what 
they're doing. 

655
00:31:08,280 --> 00:31:09,720
They know they're signing a 
contract. 

656
00:31:09,720 --> 00:31:13,680
They know the price, but due to 
a severe psychiatric illness, 

657
00:31:13,920 --> 00:31:16,920
they completely lack the 
self-control or the rational 

658
00:31:16,920 --> 00:31:20,040
motivation to stop themselves. 
Which led to the development of 

659
00:31:20,040 --> 00:31:24,440
the motivational or effective 
test found in Restatement 151B. 

660
00:31:24,640 --> 00:31:27,440
How does that one work? 
This test states that a contract

661
00:31:27,440 --> 00:31:31,560
is voidable if, by reason of 
mental illness or defect, the 

662
00:31:31,560 --> 00:31:34,320
person is unable to act 
reasonably in relation to the 

663
00:31:34,320 --> 00:31:37,240
transaction and D the other 
party has reason to know of 

664
00:31:37,240 --> 00:31:39,680
their condition. 
Let's test the boundaries of 

665
00:31:39,680 --> 00:31:41,560
these two rules with a parasite 
scenarios. 

666
00:31:41,640 --> 00:31:44,320
Let's start with an elderly man.
Let's call him Mr. Price. 

667
00:31:44,400 --> 00:31:46,680
OK, Mr. Price He owns a 
beautiful house. 

668
00:31:47,160 --> 00:31:50,920
He's a bit stubborn, he resists 
advice from his family, and he 

669
00:31:50,920 --> 00:31:53,760
has some minor memory lapses 
common with aging. 

670
00:31:54,280 --> 00:31:58,440
One day he sells his house to a 
buyer for patently inadequate 

671
00:31:58,440 --> 00:32:01,080
some just a terrible. 
Deal a total RIP off. 

672
00:32:01,160 --> 00:32:02,760
Right. 
His daughter finds out, she is 

673
00:32:02,760 --> 00:32:06,360
horrified and she wants to void 
the sale based on mental 

674
00:32:06,360 --> 00:32:08,440
incapacity. 
Does she succeed? 

675
00:32:08,760 --> 00:32:11,560
Under the strict cognitive test,
absolutely not. 

676
00:32:11,680 --> 00:32:13,720
Mr. Price knew he was selling a 
house. 

677
00:32:13,720 --> 00:32:16,880
He understood the document. 
He knew the buyer was giving him

678
00:32:16,880 --> 00:32:18,760
money. 
What about under the modern 

679
00:32:18,760 --> 00:32:21,560
motivational test? 
He still likely loses. 

680
00:32:21,600 --> 00:32:23,280
The courts are very clear on 
this. 

681
00:32:23,640 --> 00:32:26,240
Making a bad deal, being 
stubborn, or showing poor 

682
00:32:26,240 --> 00:32:28,160
judgement is not a psychiatric 
illness. 

683
00:32:28,160 --> 00:32:29,080
It's. 
Just bad judgement. 

684
00:32:29,280 --> 00:32:31,040
Right. 
To utilize the motivational 

685
00:32:31,040 --> 00:32:33,840
test, the courts generally 
require expert medical testimony

686
00:32:33,840 --> 00:32:36,680
to prove a diagnosed underlying 
illness or defect. 

687
00:32:37,120 --> 00:32:39,960
You cannot simply reverse 
engineer a diagnosis just 

688
00:32:39,960 --> 00:32:42,240
because the financial terms of 
the deal were foolish. 

689
00:32:42,320 --> 00:32:44,000
OK, let's look at the second 
scenario. 

690
00:32:44,000 --> 00:32:47,720
Let's look at a man named Clark.
Clark suffers from clinically 

691
00:32:47,720 --> 00:32:50,120
diagnosed severe bipolar 
disorder. 

692
00:32:50,720 --> 00:32:53,480
He enters a massive manic 
episode where his impulse 

693
00:32:53,480 --> 00:32:57,880
control is completely destroyed.
During this episode he goes 

694
00:32:57,880 --> 00:33:01,760
online and books an exorbitantly
expensive, non refundable luxury

695
00:33:01,760 --> 00:33:04,240
resort vacation that he cannot 
possibly afford. 

696
00:33:04,400 --> 00:33:08,080
A very modern problem. 
Right now, cognitively, he 

697
00:33:08,080 --> 00:33:10,600
understands he is booking a 
hotel, he reads the dates, he 

698
00:33:10,600 --> 00:33:13,120
enters his credit card. 
But his illness has completely 

699
00:33:13,120 --> 00:33:15,080
overridden his ability to act 
reasonably. 

700
00:33:15,280 --> 00:33:17,480
He clicked that. 
I agree. 

701
00:33:18,000 --> 00:33:20,360
When he stabilizes, he tries to 
void the contract. 

702
00:33:20,800 --> 00:33:23,040
Does he win? 
This scenario perfectly 

703
00:33:23,040 --> 00:33:26,040
illustrates why that second prom
of the motivational test is so 

704
00:33:26,040 --> 00:33:28,440
crucial. 
Under the cognitive test, Clark 

705
00:33:28,440 --> 00:33:30,720
loses because he knew what a 
hotel booking was. 

706
00:33:31,280 --> 00:33:33,400
Under the motivational test, we 
can agree that he lacked the 

707
00:33:33,400 --> 00:33:37,000
ability to act reasonably due to
a documented mental illness, but

708
00:33:37,160 --> 00:33:40,400
but GT the test strictly 
requires that the other party 

709
00:33:40,400 --> 00:33:42,440
had reason to know of his 
condition. 

710
00:33:42,520 --> 00:33:44,800
And since he booked it through 
an automated website. 

711
00:33:44,840 --> 00:33:47,600
The resort had 0 interaction 
with him. 

712
00:33:47,800 --> 00:33:50,720
The computer server could not 
observe his manic state. 

713
00:33:51,040 --> 00:33:54,400
They had absolutely no reason to
know he was impaired. 

714
00:33:54,400 --> 00:33:56,680
Which means. 
Therefore, Clark fails the 

715
00:33:56,680 --> 00:33:59,880
motivational test as well and 
the contract stands. 

716
00:34:00,320 --> 00:34:03,280
The kill switch fails. 
I can hear a law student pushing

717
00:34:03,280 --> 00:34:06,320
back right now on this. 
They're thinking, isn't this 

718
00:34:06,320 --> 00:34:09,760
motivational disorder stuff just
a convenient excuse for severe 

719
00:34:09,760 --> 00:34:12,440
buyer's remorse? 
Like if I make a terrible 

720
00:34:12,440 --> 00:34:15,800
financial decision, can I just 
find a psychologist to say I was

721
00:34:15,800 --> 00:34:18,320
acting unreasonably? 
That is a totally valid 

722
00:34:18,320 --> 00:34:21,320
critique, and it is exactly why 
the drafters of the Restatement 

723
00:34:21,320 --> 00:34:23,600
included that reason to no 
requirement. 

724
00:34:23,600 --> 00:34:26,840
To balance it out. 
Yes, the law is balancing 2 

725
00:34:26,840 --> 00:34:30,320
competing interests here. 
On one hand, we want to protect 

726
00:34:30,320 --> 00:34:32,960
truly vulnerable parties who 
suffer from debilitating 

727
00:34:32,960 --> 00:34:35,600
illnesses, but on the other 
hand, we must protect the 

728
00:34:35,600 --> 00:34:37,760
reliance interest of innocent 
sellers. 

729
00:34:37,760 --> 00:34:39,840
The security of the transaction 
itself. 

730
00:34:40,040 --> 00:34:41,880
Exactly. 
If the seller had no clue you 

731
00:34:41,880 --> 00:34:44,560
were impaired and they 
transacted in good faith, they 

732
00:34:44,560 --> 00:34:48,400
relied on that contract. 
The law refuses to allow every 

733
00:34:48,400 --> 00:34:52,120
online purchase or arm's length 
transaction to be undone by 

734
00:34:52,120 --> 00:34:56,560
hidden internal mental states. 
If we allowed that, commerce 

735
00:34:56,560 --> 00:34:59,440
would grind to a halt. 
Which segues perfectly into 

736
00:34:59,440 --> 00:35:02,640
another behavioral reality that 
modern courts have to grapple 

737
00:35:02,640 --> 00:35:06,480
with Unconscionability. 
Ah, yes, this goes right back to

738
00:35:06,480 --> 00:35:08,360
the smartphone example we 
started the show with. 

739
00:35:08,800 --> 00:35:12,560
The classical assumption is that
rational actors carefully read 

740
00:35:12,560 --> 00:35:15,880
contracts and negotiate terms to
maximize their wealth. 

741
00:35:15,880 --> 00:35:19,760
But the empirical reality is 
that less than .2% of consumers 

742
00:35:19,760 --> 00:35:23,760
read boilerplate form contracts 
0.2%. 

743
00:35:23,920 --> 00:35:26,280
It challenges the very 
foundation of the ascent pillar 

744
00:35:26,280 --> 00:35:28,960
we talked about earlier. 
I mean, if almost literally 

745
00:35:28,960 --> 00:35:32,000
nobody reads the terms and 
conditions, how can the law 

746
00:35:32,000 --> 00:35:33,520
honestly say they agreed to 
them? 

747
00:35:33,520 --> 00:35:35,080
It feels like a massive legal 
fiction. 

748
00:35:35,080 --> 00:35:37,720
It is a legal fiction, but it's 
a necessary one. 

749
00:35:37,880 --> 00:35:40,480
The courts know that if they 
invalidated every standard form 

750
00:35:40,480 --> 00:35:43,840
contract because it wasn't read,
the modern digital economy would

751
00:35:43,840 --> 00:35:45,160
just collapse. 
So what do they do? 

752
00:35:45,280 --> 00:35:48,360
So they compromise. 
They generally enforce standard 

753
00:35:48,360 --> 00:35:52,200
forms, but they use the doctrine
of unconscionability as a safety

754
00:35:52,200 --> 00:35:54,720
valve. 
If a company hides A boilerplate

755
00:35:54,720 --> 00:35:58,520
term that is so outrageously 
oppressive, SO1 sided, and 

756
00:35:58,520 --> 00:36:02,000
fundamentally unfair that it 
shocks the conscience of the 

757
00:36:02,000 --> 00:36:05,400
court, the judge will simply 
cross it out and refuse to 

758
00:36:05,400 --> 00:36:07,400
enforce it. 
It's the ultimate policing 

759
00:36:07,400 --> 00:36:09,400
mechanism against the fiction of
consent. 

760
00:36:10,000 --> 00:36:12,840
O Let's assume our contract has 
survived all the kill switches. 

761
00:36:12,840 --> 00:36:15,320
OK, it survived. 
There are no Statute of Frauds 

762
00:36:15,320 --> 00:36:18,480
violations, no incapacity, no 
unconscionability. 

763
00:36:18,760 --> 00:36:22,680
The contract is legally binding,
but now the parties actually 

764
00:36:22,680 --> 00:36:26,240
start trying to do the work and 
they suddenly realize they have 

765
00:36:26,240 --> 00:36:29,280
completely different definitions
of what a specific word in the 

766
00:36:29,280 --> 00:36:30,240
contract means. 
A. 

767
00:36:30,240 --> 00:36:33,680
Classic interpretation dispute. 
How do courts solve a dispute 

768
00:36:33,680 --> 00:36:36,480
when both sides are looking at 
the exact same piece of paper 

769
00:36:36,480 --> 00:36:38,200
but reading 2 completely 
different things? 

770
00:36:38,200 --> 00:36:41,120
Now we have entered the realm of
interpretation and content. 

771
00:36:41,520 --> 00:36:44,800
How do we navigate the 
boundaries of the agreement and 

772
00:36:44,800 --> 00:36:47,040
the heavyweight champion 
doctrine in this arena? 

773
00:36:47,040 --> 00:36:51,360
Is the parole evidence? 
Rule the PER The mere mention of

774
00:36:51,360 --> 00:36:54,120
it causes law students to break 
into a cold sweat. 

775
00:36:54,240 --> 00:36:56,320
Oh, it really does. 
Even the name is confusing. 

776
00:36:57,120 --> 00:36:58,880
Parole sounds like criminal 
release. 

777
00:36:59,120 --> 00:37:02,320
It is an archaic term, but the 
concept is actually quite 

778
00:37:02,320 --> 00:37:05,080
logical once you grasp the 
underlying goal. 

779
00:37:05,080 --> 00:37:07,720
Break it down for us. 
The parole evidence rule 

780
00:37:07,720 --> 00:37:10,440
dictates that if the parties 
have taken the time and effort 

781
00:37:10,440 --> 00:37:14,280
to reduce their final agreement 
to a complete written document, 

782
00:37:14,440 --> 00:37:17,760
what the law calls a full 
integration, then a court will 

783
00:37:17,760 --> 00:37:22,520
simply exclude any outside 
extrinsic evidence of prior or 

784
00:37:22,520 --> 00:37:25,520
contemporaneous negotiations 
that contradicts that writing. 

785
00:37:25,520 --> 00:37:29,000
So if it's not on the final 
paper, it does not exist in the 

786
00:37:29,000 --> 00:37:31,160
eyes of the court. 
That is the essence of it, and 

787
00:37:31,160 --> 00:37:33,840
this rule sparked one of the 
greatest, most fundamental 

788
00:37:33,840 --> 00:37:37,440
academic battles in the history 
of contract law, the debate 

789
00:37:37,440 --> 00:37:39,680
between Professor Williston and 
Professor Corbin. 

790
00:37:39,800 --> 00:37:43,440
A clash of legal Titans over how
we derive meaning from words 

791
00:37:43,920 --> 00:37:45,640
Tell us about Williston's 
approach first. 

792
00:37:46,120 --> 00:37:49,040
Professor Williston was the 
ultimate formalist. 

793
00:37:49,480 --> 00:37:51,960
He championed what we call the 
four corners rule. 

794
00:37:52,280 --> 00:37:54,960
He argued that if a written 
document looks complete on its 

795
00:37:54,960 --> 00:37:57,120
face, the court must lock the 
doors. 

796
00:37:57,520 --> 00:38:00,240
You look only within the four 
corners of the physical paper. 

797
00:38:00,400 --> 00:38:03,440
And he particularly relied on 
merger clauses, right? 

798
00:38:03,520 --> 00:38:06,160
Those boilerplate sentences at 
the end of a contract that say 

799
00:38:06,680 --> 00:38:09,680
this document constitutes the 
entire agreement between the 

800
00:38:09,680 --> 00:38:10,560
parties. 
Yes. 

801
00:38:10,840 --> 00:38:14,600
For Williston, a merger clause 
was definitive proof that the 

802
00:38:14,600 --> 00:38:16,520
document was the final 
integration. 

803
00:38:17,320 --> 00:38:20,600
You interpret the words based on
what a reasonably intelligent 

804
00:38:20,600 --> 00:38:22,960
person would think they mean in 
a dictionary sense. 

805
00:38:22,960 --> 00:38:25,520
You don't look outside. 
You absolutely do not look at 

806
00:38:25,520 --> 00:38:29,160
outside emails, prior drafts, or
listen to testimony from a party

807
00:38:29,160 --> 00:38:31,840
saying, well, what we really 
meant when we wrote commercial 

808
00:38:31,840 --> 00:38:33,760
grade was this specific 
standard. 

809
00:38:33,760 --> 00:38:35,880
Why was Williston so rigid about
that? 

810
00:38:36,240 --> 00:38:40,240
Because he valued commercial 
certainty above all else, he 

811
00:38:40,240 --> 00:38:43,680
believed that sophisticated 
businesses need to know that the

812
00:38:43,680 --> 00:38:47,360
document they signed is the 
absolute alpha and Omega of 

813
00:38:47,360 --> 00:38:50,480
their obligations. 
He also feared that if you let 

814
00:38:50,480 --> 00:38:53,720
parties testify about their 
secret intentions, it would just

815
00:38:53,720 --> 00:38:55,800
invite perjury and endless 
litigation. 

816
00:38:55,880 --> 00:38:58,880
But then you have Professor 
Corbin who looks at Williston's 

817
00:38:58,880 --> 00:39:01,880
approach and essentially thinks 
it's naive to how language 

818
00:39:01,880 --> 00:39:04,200
actually works. 
Corbin was a contextualist. 

819
00:39:04,600 --> 00:39:07,560
He argued that the entire 
underlying purpose of contract 

820
00:39:07,560 --> 00:39:11,120
law is to effectuate the actual 
subjective intent of the 

821
00:39:11,120 --> 00:39:13,560
parties. 
He famously argued that there is

822
00:39:13,560 --> 00:39:16,920
no such thing as a word with 
only one true objective meaning.

823
00:39:17,120 --> 00:39:19,720
Words are just symbols. 
So how did Corbin approach a 

824
00:39:19,720 --> 00:39:22,160
written contract then? 
Corbin said you must look at 

825
00:39:22,160 --> 00:39:25,040
outside evidence, the context, 
the prior negotiations, the 

826
00:39:25,040 --> 00:39:27,800
subjective intent just to figure
out if the document really was 

827
00:39:27,800 --> 00:39:29,200
meant to be final in the first 
place. 

828
00:39:29,200 --> 00:39:31,120
So he opens the door. 
Wide open. 

829
00:39:31,560 --> 00:39:34,320
You have to look at that context
to figure out what those 

830
00:39:34,320 --> 00:39:37,320
specific words meant to those 
specific people. 

831
00:39:37,480 --> 00:39:40,960
So if we look at the modern 
legal landscape today, who won 

832
00:39:40,960 --> 00:39:43,160
the battle? 
It's a split, but the majority 

833
00:39:43,160 --> 00:39:46,040
of jurisdictions still lean 
heavily toward Williston's 

834
00:39:46,040 --> 00:39:48,320
formalistic Four Corners 
approach. 

835
00:39:48,360 --> 00:39:50,600
She liked the certainty. 
The courts simply prefer the 

836
00:39:50,600 --> 00:39:53,840
stability and efficiency of the 
written word over the messy, he 

837
00:39:53,840 --> 00:39:57,440
said, she said reality of 
digging into subjective intent. 

838
00:39:57,520 --> 00:40:01,680
However, if we look back at the 
UCC, which governs the sale of 

839
00:40:01,680 --> 00:40:04,920
goods. 
It injects a massive dose of 

840
00:40:04,920 --> 00:40:06,720
Corbin's contextualism, doesn't 
it? 

841
00:40:06,840 --> 00:40:10,200
It absolutely does. 
The UCC explicitly commands 

842
00:40:10,200 --> 00:40:13,360
courts to look at outside 
conduct to interpret the meaning

843
00:40:13,360 --> 00:40:16,040
of a contract. 
Article 2 allows courts to look 

844
00:40:16,040 --> 00:40:19,080
at 3 specific types of context. 
What is the first one? 

845
00:40:19,280 --> 00:40:23,040
1st, the course of performance. 
How have these two parties acted

846
00:40:23,040 --> 00:40:25,080
under this specific contract so 
far? 

847
00:40:25,160 --> 00:40:27,760
If they have been operating for 
six months without complaining, 

848
00:40:27,760 --> 00:40:31,200
that conduct defines the term. 
2nd is the course of dealing. 

849
00:40:31,320 --> 00:40:33,200
Right. 
How did these two parties act in

850
00:40:33,200 --> 00:40:36,520
past contracts with each other 
and 3rd usage of trade? 

851
00:40:36,800 --> 00:40:39,800
What are the standard norms in 
this specific industry? 

852
00:40:39,920 --> 00:40:42,760
So if a lumber yard and a local 
builder have been doing business

853
00:40:42,760 --> 00:40:46,800
for 20 years and the contract 
just says send a load of wood, 

854
00:40:47,640 --> 00:40:50,240
the court isn't going to pull 
out a dictionary to define load.

855
00:40:50,320 --> 00:40:51,960
No, they wouldn't. 
They are going to look at the 

856
00:40:51,960 --> 00:40:56,280
fact that for 20 years a load 
has always meant 500 boards. 

857
00:40:56,280 --> 00:40:59,480
Exactly. 
The UCC recognizes that 

858
00:40:59,480 --> 00:41:03,600
merchants do not speak in 
perfect formal legal syntax. 

859
00:41:03,880 --> 00:41:06,360
They use shorthand. 
They use industry jargon. 

860
00:41:06,600 --> 00:41:10,080
Their actual conduct is the best
possible evidence of their true 

861
00:41:10,080 --> 00:41:12,760
intent. 
OK, so we are interpreting the 

862
00:41:12,760 --> 00:41:14,800
contract, looking at the words 
in the context. 

863
00:41:15,240 --> 00:41:18,520
While we are doing this, there 
is a massive issue spotting 

864
00:41:18,520 --> 00:41:20,680
moment that students must 
master. 

865
00:41:21,160 --> 00:41:23,600
It's the distinction between a 
promise and a condition. 

866
00:41:23,920 --> 00:41:25,720
Why is it so vital to tell them 
apart? 

867
00:41:25,880 --> 00:41:28,640
Because the legal consequences 
of failing to meet them are 

868
00:41:28,640 --> 00:41:30,480
drastically, fundamentally 
different. 

869
00:41:30,600 --> 00:41:32,520
OK, let's start with the 
condition precedent. 

870
00:41:33,000 --> 00:41:35,720
A condition precedent is an 
event that must occur before a 

871
00:41:35,720 --> 00:41:39,280
duty to perform even arises. 
Think of it like a locked door 

872
00:41:39,280 --> 00:41:41,000
on a vault. 
Perfect analogy. 

873
00:41:41,000 --> 00:41:45,960
For example, a contract says I 
will buy your house for $500,000

874
00:41:46,080 --> 00:41:48,840
provided that the house passes a
structural inspection. 

875
00:41:48,880 --> 00:41:51,840
So the inspection is the key. 
The passing of the inspection is

876
00:41:51,840 --> 00:41:54,560
the key that unlocks my duty to 
hand over the money. 

877
00:41:55,080 --> 00:41:57,680
If the inspection fails, the 
door stays locked. 

878
00:41:58,120 --> 00:42:01,320
I owe you nothing and I can walk
away entirely. 

879
00:42:01,560 --> 00:42:04,200
Contrast that with a condition 
subsequent. 

880
00:42:04,560 --> 00:42:08,520
A condition subsequent cuts off 
an already existing active duty.

881
00:42:08,640 --> 00:42:12,520
For example, I will pay you 
$1000 a month to manage my 

882
00:42:12,520 --> 00:42:14,720
property until you graduate from
college. 

883
00:42:14,720 --> 00:42:17,640
So the duty is happening now. 
The duty is active right now, 

884
00:42:18,160 --> 00:42:21,120
but the event of your graduation
acts as a guillotine that 

885
00:42:21,120 --> 00:42:24,600
suffers the ongoing obligation. 
So what happens if a student 

886
00:42:24,600 --> 00:42:27,920
confuses a condition with a 
promise on an exam fact pattern?

887
00:42:28,040 --> 00:42:30,440
It leads to catastrophic legal 
advice. 

888
00:42:30,680 --> 00:42:33,480
If a party breaks a promise they
have breached the contract. 

889
00:42:33,560 --> 00:42:36,880
I can sue them for damages 
caused by that breach, however, 

890
00:42:36,880 --> 00:42:40,440
depending on the severity, I 
might still be legally obligated

891
00:42:40,440 --> 00:42:43,560
to perform my end of the deal. 
But if a condition fails. 

892
00:42:43,760 --> 00:42:48,200
If an express condition fails to
occur, performance is completely

893
00:42:48,320 --> 00:42:51,560
100% excused. 
No one is in breach of contract.

894
00:42:51,680 --> 00:42:54,960
The duty simply never activated 
or it was extinguished. 

895
00:42:55,480 --> 00:42:58,080
So how do you spot them? 
You look for magic words when 

896
00:42:58,080 --> 00:43:01,640
interpreting the text. 
Promises use obligatory language

897
00:43:01,640 --> 00:43:05,720
like shall, will, or agrees to. 
Conditions use conditional 

898
00:43:05,720 --> 00:43:10,760
language like if provided that, 
on the condition that or subject

899
00:43:10,800 --> 00:43:12,640
to. 
This brings us to the breaking 

900
00:43:12,640 --> 00:43:14,720
point. 
We know what the contract says. 

901
00:43:14,720 --> 00:43:17,880
We know the conditions, but what
happens when the time comes to 

902
00:43:17,880 --> 00:43:21,040
actually do the work and someone
simply fails to deliver? 

903
00:43:21,160 --> 00:43:22,920
The engine of the transaction 
breaks down. 

904
00:43:23,000 --> 00:43:26,240
We have entered the realm of 
breach and performance and 

905
00:43:26,240 --> 00:43:28,280
sometimes you don't even have to
wait for the due date to know 

906
00:43:28,280 --> 00:43:30,480
the breakdown is coming. 
You are talking about 

907
00:43:30,480 --> 00:43:32,680
anticipatory repudiation. 
Yes. 

908
00:43:33,160 --> 00:43:36,920
This occurs when a party makes a
clear, unequivocal manifestation

909
00:43:37,200 --> 00:43:39,680
that they will not perform their
duties, and they make this 

910
00:43:39,680 --> 00:43:42,320
declaration before the time of 
performance has even arrived. 

911
00:43:42,480 --> 00:43:44,840
Let's say I own a manufacturing 
plant. 

912
00:43:45,360 --> 00:43:48,960
I have a contract with you to 
deliver 10 tons of steel this 

913
00:43:48,960 --> 00:43:51,640
coming Friday. 
On Tuesday, you call me up and 

914
00:43:51,640 --> 00:43:54,400
say, hey, just letting you know 
I found a better buyer. 

915
00:43:54,600 --> 00:43:57,840
I am absolutely not delivering 
that steel to you on Friday. 

916
00:43:57,840 --> 00:44:00,640
Deal with it. 
You have just anticipatorily 

917
00:44:00,640 --> 00:44:03,240
repudiated the contract. 
And the beauty of this doctrine 

918
00:44:03,240 --> 00:44:07,280
is that the law does not force 
you, the victim, to sit around 

919
00:44:07,280 --> 00:44:11,560
helplessly until Friday just to 
officially declare A breach. 

920
00:44:11,600 --> 00:44:13,880
You can act now. 
Once that unequivocal statement 

921
00:44:13,880 --> 00:44:16,520
is made, you have the immediate 
right to sue for breach of 

922
00:44:16,520 --> 00:44:19,720
contract on Tuesday. 
Or you can immediately go into 

923
00:44:19,720 --> 00:44:22,600
the market, find a new supplier,
and mitigate your damages. 

924
00:44:22,840 --> 00:44:25,240
But assuming we don't have a 
crystal ball and the day of 

925
00:44:25,240 --> 00:44:28,120
performance arrives and things 
just go wrong, the work is 

926
00:44:28,120 --> 00:44:32,960
flawed or or incomplete, we have
to classify the severity of the 

927
00:44:32,960 --> 00:44:35,440
failure. 
Is it a material breach or a 

928
00:44:35,440 --> 00:44:37,680
minor breach? 
This is perhaps the most heavily

929
00:44:37,680 --> 00:44:40,600
tested concept regarding 
performance, and it is where I 

930
00:44:40,600 --> 00:44:43,360
see the most dangerous reflex 
error from law students. 

931
00:44:43,360 --> 00:44:45,880
What is the reflex? 
A student will read a fact 

932
00:44:45,880 --> 00:44:49,760
pattern where a contractor or a 
seller makes a tiny, almost 

933
00:44:49,760 --> 00:44:52,920
insignificant mistake. 
They install the wrong color 

934
00:44:52,920 --> 00:44:55,200
door knobs, or they deliver a 
day late. 

935
00:44:55,760 --> 00:44:59,240
The student sees the error and 
their brain screams aha they 

936
00:44:59,240 --> 00:45:01,800
didn't perform perfectly, It's a
breach. 

937
00:45:01,800 --> 00:45:04,240
And what do they conclude? 
They conclude the client can 

938
00:45:04,240 --> 00:45:08,280
cancel the contract, keep the 
house and refuse to pay a single

939
00:45:08,280 --> 00:45:11,400
dime. 
Which would be absolute economic

940
00:45:11,400 --> 00:45:12,800
destruction for the breaching 
party. 

941
00:45:12,800 --> 00:45:14,680
It would be wildly 
disproportionate. 

942
00:45:14,840 --> 00:45:18,200
That is why the law forces us to
evaluate the severity of the 

943
00:45:18,200 --> 00:45:21,000
breach. 
A material breach is a failure 

944
00:45:21,000 --> 00:45:25,000
so significant, so foundational,
that it completely deprives the 

945
00:45:25,000 --> 00:45:27,560
non breaching party of the 
substantial benefit of their 

946
00:45:27,560 --> 00:45:29,920
bargain. 
The core purpose of the deal is 

947
00:45:29,920 --> 00:45:32,080
destroyed. 
And the consequence of a 

948
00:45:32,080 --> 00:45:35,200
material breach is severe. 
It is if the breach is material,

949
00:45:35,200 --> 00:45:37,840
the non breaching party is 
entirely excused from their own 

950
00:45:37,840 --> 00:45:40,160
performance and they can sue for
total damages. 

951
00:45:40,240 --> 00:45:42,160
But what if it is a minor 
breach? 

952
00:45:42,520 --> 00:45:45,400
A minor breach means the party 
achieved what we call 

953
00:45:45,400 --> 00:45:48,440
substantial performance. 
They mostly did what they 

954
00:45:48,440 --> 00:45:51,520
promised to do. 
The core benefit was delivered, 

955
00:45:51,840 --> 00:45:55,560
but they made a small error or 
deviation from the exact 

956
00:45:55,560 --> 00:45:57,840
specifications. 
And the consequence there? 

957
00:45:57,840 --> 00:46:00,600
The consequence here is vital. 
If the breaching party 

958
00:46:00,600 --> 00:46:04,400
substantially performed, the non
breaching party is not excused 

959
00:46:04,400 --> 00:46:07,160
from their performance. 
They still must pay the contract

960
00:46:07,160 --> 00:46:09,240
price. 
However, they are allowed to 

961
00:46:09,240 --> 00:46:11,760
subtract the damages caused by 
the minor error. 

962
00:46:12,200 --> 00:46:14,920
Let's see how a court actually 
figures this out in practice. 

963
00:46:15,360 --> 00:46:18,640
It isn't just a gut feeling. 
The Restatement provides a 

964
00:46:18,640 --> 00:46:22,320
structured framework of five 
factors to determine if a breach

965
00:46:22,320 --> 00:46:24,640
is material. 
Let's run a hypothetical through

966
00:46:24,640 --> 00:46:26,800
those five factors to see how 
the analysis works. 

967
00:46:26,960 --> 00:46:30,160
Let's use a variation of a 
classic bar exam hypo. 

968
00:46:30,320 --> 00:46:32,760
Let's call it the Carl and Ben 
solar panel case. 

969
00:46:32,760 --> 00:46:35,440
OK, lay it out. 
Ben hires Carl, a general 

970
00:46:35,440 --> 00:46:37,360
contractor, to build a custom 
house. 

971
00:46:37,800 --> 00:46:41,200
The contract explicitly states 
that Carl must use a specific 

972
00:46:41,200 --> 00:46:44,160
brand of high efficiency solar 
panels, let's call them Sun 

973
00:46:44,160 --> 00:46:46,600
Company panels, and the house 
must be finished by 

974
00:46:46,600 --> 00:46:48,440
Thanksgiving. 
Carl builds the house. 

975
00:46:48,520 --> 00:46:51,040
It's beautiful, it's 
structurally sound, and it's 

976
00:46:51,040 --> 00:46:52,840
finished perfectly on time for 
Thanksgiving. 

977
00:46:53,440 --> 00:46:56,400
But Carl couldn't get the Sun 
Company panels, so he installed 

978
00:46:56,400 --> 00:46:58,560
a different brand of panels, 
Star Company. 

979
00:46:58,880 --> 00:47:02,000
They are exactly equal in 
quality, efficiency, and market 

980
00:47:02,000 --> 00:47:03,680
value. 
OK, then. 

981
00:47:03,680 --> 00:47:07,200
Notice that the brand name 
declares a material breach and 

982
00:47:07,200 --> 00:47:11,000
refuses to pay the final 
$200,000 installment. 

983
00:47:11,200 --> 00:47:14,920
Let's run the five factors to 
see if Ben is legally justified 

984
00:47:14,920 --> 00:47:16,800
in withholding payment. 
Factor 1. 

985
00:47:17,560 --> 00:47:20,520
The extent to which the injured 
party is deprived of the benefit

986
00:47:20,520 --> 00:47:23,040
they reasonably expected. 
Well, Ben expected a fully 

987
00:47:23,040 --> 00:47:26,120
constructed, functional custom 
house with working solar panels.

988
00:47:26,120 --> 00:47:28,640
By Thanksgiving. 
He got exactly that. 

989
00:47:28,640 --> 00:47:31,160
The house generates power. 
He can live in it. 

990
00:47:31,400 --> 00:47:33,240
The benefit deprived is almost 
0. 

991
00:47:33,320 --> 00:47:35,760
Factor 2. 
The extent to which the injured 

992
00:47:35,760 --> 00:47:38,720
party can be adequately 
compensated for the deprived 

993
00:47:38,720 --> 00:47:40,400
benefit. 
Even if we pretend the star 

994
00:47:40,400 --> 00:47:42,840
panels are somehow worth 
slightly less to Ben, 

995
00:47:42,840 --> 00:47:45,280
subjectively he can easily be 
compensated. 

996
00:47:45,520 --> 00:47:47,720
The court can just figure out 
the difference in value between 

997
00:47:47,720 --> 00:47:50,480
the two brands and dug that tiny
amount from the final payment. 

998
00:47:50,720 --> 00:47:53,600
Factor 3. 
The extent to which the party 

999
00:47:53,600 --> 00:47:56,160
feeling to perform will suffer 
forfeiture. 

1000
00:47:56,680 --> 00:48:00,120
This is the massive 1. 
If the court agrees with Ben and

1001
00:48:00,120 --> 00:48:03,840
calls this a material breach, 
Carl forfeits the labor, the 

1002
00:48:03,840 --> 00:48:07,040
materials, and the profit of 
building an entire house. 

1003
00:48:07,480 --> 00:48:10,920
He loses hundreds of thousands 
of dollars over a completely 

1004
00:48:10,920 --> 00:48:14,160
functional roof. 
It is a wildly disproportionate 

1005
00:48:14,160 --> 00:48:15,680
loss. 
Factor 4. 

1006
00:48:15,960 --> 00:48:19,200
The likelihood that the party 
failing to perform will cure 

1007
00:48:19,200 --> 00:48:21,840
their failure. 
Carl probably can't cure this 

1008
00:48:21,840 --> 00:48:24,320
easily without ripping the 
panels off the roof, which might

1009
00:48:24,320 --> 00:48:27,760
actually damage the structure, 
but since the house is already 

1010
00:48:27,760 --> 00:48:31,360
fully functional and equal in 
value, the need for a cure is 

1011
00:48:31,360 --> 00:48:33,840
incredibly low anyway. 
Factor 5. 

1012
00:48:34,320 --> 00:48:37,360
The extent to which the behavior
of the party failing to perform 

1013
00:48:37,360 --> 00:48:40,360
comports with standards of good 
faith and fair dealing. 

1014
00:48:40,600 --> 00:48:43,360
The facts don't show Carl doing 
this out of malice. 

1015
00:48:43,920 --> 00:48:46,840
The Sun Company panels were 
probably just out of stock, and 

1016
00:48:46,840 --> 00:48:49,680
he made a judgment call to 
substitute an equal brand so he 

1017
00:48:49,680 --> 00:48:51,400
wouldn't breach the Thanksgiving
deadline. 

1018
00:48:51,640 --> 00:48:54,880
So when we synthesize those five
factors, what is the verdict? 

1019
00:48:55,080 --> 00:48:57,320
It is overwhelmingly a minor 
breach. 

1020
00:48:57,840 --> 00:48:59,960
Coral achieved substantial 
performance. 

1021
00:49:00,560 --> 00:49:02,600
Ben is not excused from his 
duty. 

1022
00:49:03,120 --> 00:49:07,600
He must pay the $200,000 minus 
whatever tiny negligible 

1023
00:49:07,600 --> 00:49:10,000
difference in value exists 
between the panel brands. 

1024
00:49:10,000 --> 00:49:12,720
What this hypothetical really 
brushes up against is the 

1025
00:49:12,720 --> 00:49:16,600
profound underlying policy 
doctrine of economic waste. 

1026
00:49:16,720 --> 00:49:17,880
Economic waste? 
Right. 

1027
00:49:17,920 --> 00:49:20,840
Why does the law force the 
homeowner to pay the builder 

1028
00:49:21,200 --> 00:49:25,280
even when the builder explicitly
failed to use the specified 

1029
00:49:25,280 --> 00:49:27,360
brand? 
Because the alternative is a 

1030
00:49:27,360 --> 00:49:31,040
terrifying precedent, let's look
at the famous Reading Pipes case

1031
00:49:31,040 --> 00:49:33,640
from New York. 
A builder constructs a massive 

1032
00:49:33,640 --> 00:49:36,960
mansion and accidentally 
installs Co's brand pipes inside

1033
00:49:36,960 --> 00:49:39,520
the walls instead of the 
contracted reading brand pipes. 

1034
00:49:40,000 --> 00:49:41,640
They are identical in quality. 
Right. 

1035
00:49:41,800 --> 00:49:45,360
If the court allowed the owner 
to say material breach, I demand

1036
00:49:45,360 --> 00:49:48,000
you RIP down the plaster walls 
of this finished mansion, pull 

1037
00:49:48,000 --> 00:49:50,560
out the pipes, and put in the 
reading pipes, the cost of 

1038
00:49:50,560 --> 00:49:53,000
destroying and rebuilding the 
house would be astronomically 

1039
00:49:53,000 --> 00:49:55,600
higher than any actual harm 
suffered by the owner. 

1040
00:49:55,600 --> 00:49:58,080
It would be pure economic waste.
Exactly. 

1041
00:49:58,120 --> 00:50:00,920
The law will not force the 
destruction of wealth just to 

1042
00:50:00,920 --> 00:50:04,360
satisfy a technicality. 
It prevents opportunistic buyers

1043
00:50:04,360 --> 00:50:06,920
from using harmless errors to 
escape their debts. 

1044
00:50:07,200 --> 00:50:10,080
That makes perfect sense. 
The courts are protecting the 

1045
00:50:10,080 --> 00:50:12,760
overall economy from petty 
grievances. 

1046
00:50:13,240 --> 00:50:16,480
So we've established that there 
is a breach and we know if it's 

1047
00:50:16,480 --> 00:50:19,520
material or minor. 
Now we reach the final stage of 

1048
00:50:19,520 --> 00:50:21,920
the engine. 
How does the court actually fix 

1049
00:50:21,920 --> 00:50:23,680
it? 
What is the ultimate remedy? 

1050
00:50:23,760 --> 00:50:26,960
We have reached Section 6, 
remedies and synthesis. 

1051
00:50:27,200 --> 00:50:30,320
When the contract breaks, how do
we make the victim whole? 

1052
00:50:30,560 --> 00:50:33,520
And sometimes the victim doesn't
want money, they want exactly 

1053
00:50:33,520 --> 00:50:35,440
what they were promised. 
You were talking about specific 

1054
00:50:35,440 --> 00:50:37,960
performance. 
This is a court order backed by 

1055
00:50:37,960 --> 00:50:41,080
the threat of contempt of court,
forcing the breaching party to 

1056
00:50:41,080 --> 00:50:43,800
actually physically perform 
their duties under the contract.

1057
00:50:43,800 --> 00:50:45,560
But we must add a massive caveat
here. 

1058
00:50:45,560 --> 00:50:48,480
For anyone taking an exam, 
specific performance is an 

1059
00:50:48,480 --> 00:50:50,600
extraordinary remedy. 
Very rare. 

1060
00:50:50,960 --> 00:50:53,160
Very rare. 
The foundational principle of 

1061
00:50:53,160 --> 00:50:56,280
contract law is that it's 
strongly, overwhelmingly prefers

1062
00:50:56,280 --> 00:50:59,200
giving money damages. 
Specific performance is used 

1063
00:50:59,200 --> 00:51:02,320
only when money is fundamentally
inadequate to fix the farm. 

1064
00:51:02,400 --> 00:51:05,520
The classic example of money 
being inadequate is real estate.

1065
00:51:06,240 --> 00:51:09,880
The law views every single 
parcel of land on Earth as 

1066
00:51:09,880 --> 00:51:13,640
entirely unique. 
Yes, if we sign a contract for 

1067
00:51:13,640 --> 00:51:17,960
you to sell me your specific 
farm and you breach, tossing me 

1068
00:51:17,960 --> 00:51:19,840
a bag of money doesn't make me 
whole. 

1069
00:51:20,200 --> 00:51:23,120
I cannot go into the market and 
buy an identical farm because 

1070
00:51:23,120 --> 00:51:25,520
your farm is geographically 
unique. 

1071
00:51:25,720 --> 00:51:28,400
So the court steps in the. 
Court will use specific 

1072
00:51:28,400 --> 00:51:30,760
performance. 
They will order you to hand over

1073
00:51:30,760 --> 00:51:33,280
the deed. 
The same logic applies to unique

1074
00:51:33,280 --> 00:51:35,880
goods like a rare one-of-a-kind 
painting. 

1075
00:51:36,160 --> 00:51:38,200
You can't replace a Picasso with
cash. 

1076
00:51:38,400 --> 00:51:41,080
But there's a very strict 
constitutional limit on this 

1077
00:51:41,080 --> 00:51:43,600
power, isn't there? 
Specifically regarding personal 

1078
00:51:43,600 --> 00:51:44,640
services. 
Absolutely. 

1079
00:51:44,640 --> 00:51:47,600
Courts will never order specific
performance for a personal 

1080
00:51:47,600 --> 00:51:50,400
service contract. 
So if I hire a famous architect 

1081
00:51:50,400 --> 00:51:53,680
to design my house or a famous 
singer to perform at my venue 

1082
00:51:54,040 --> 00:51:56,480
and they breach the contract? 
The court will not force them to

1083
00:51:56,480 --> 00:51:59,240
draw the plans or step onto the 
stage at gunpoint. 

1084
00:51:59,520 --> 00:52:02,800
Forcing someone to perform labor
against their will violates the 

1085
00:52:02,800 --> 00:52:04,600
13th Amendment of the 
Constitution. 

1086
00:52:04,880 --> 00:52:07,800
It is too closely aligned with 
involuntary servitude. 

1087
00:52:08,080 --> 00:52:10,680
So what's the remedy? 
The court will only allow you to

1088
00:52:10,680 --> 00:52:12,200
sue them for the financial 
damages. 

1089
00:52:12,280 --> 00:52:14,720
Is their absence caused? 
Which brings us back to the 

1090
00:52:14,720 --> 00:52:18,560
workhorse of contract law, the 
standard everyday remedy that 

1091
00:52:18,560 --> 00:52:22,520
governs 99% of disputes 
expectation damages. 

1092
00:52:22,720 --> 00:52:26,920
The goal of expectation damages 
is simple but profoundly 

1093
00:52:26,920 --> 00:52:29,600
powerful. 
The court attempts to calculate 

1094
00:52:29,600 --> 00:52:33,200
a sum of money that will put the
non breaching party in the exact

1095
00:52:33,200 --> 00:52:36,120
financial position they would 
have been in had the contract 

1096
00:52:36,120 --> 00:52:38,360
been perfectly performed. 
So it's looking forward. 

1097
00:52:38,360 --> 00:52:41,920
Yes, we look at the expected 
profit minus any cost, the 

1098
00:52:41,920 --> 00:52:44,880
victim saved by not having to 
finish their own performance. 

1099
00:52:44,880 --> 00:52:48,840
And this concept of expectation 
damages leads us directly into 

1100
00:52:48,840 --> 00:52:52,400
what is easily the most 
controversial, mind bending and 

1101
00:52:52,400 --> 00:52:55,840
philosophically challenging 
theory in all of contract law. 

1102
00:52:56,160 --> 00:52:59,480
I want to talk about efficient 
breach and specifically the dual

1103
00:52:59,480 --> 00:53:01,600
performance hypothesis. 
This is where we leave the 

1104
00:53:01,600 --> 00:53:04,360
simple mechanics and enter the 
master class level of legal 

1105
00:53:04,360 --> 00:53:06,320
theory. 
Scholars like Markovitz and 

1106
00:53:06,320 --> 00:53:08,960
Schwartz have completely 
reimagined what a contract 

1107
00:53:08,960 --> 00:53:11,320
actually represents. 
Let me set up the traditional 

1108
00:53:11,320 --> 00:53:13,840
view first. 
Traditionally, if I sign a 

1109
00:53:13,840 --> 00:53:16,640
contract with you, the document 
says, I promise to build your 

1110
00:53:16,640 --> 00:53:19,360
deck. 
Society views that as a moral 

1111
00:53:19,360 --> 00:53:21,520
commitment. 
I gave you my word. 

1112
00:53:21,760 --> 00:53:24,440
Breaking it is wrong. 
But the dual performance 

1113
00:53:24,440 --> 00:53:27,360
hypothesis argues that between 
sophisticated commercial 

1114
00:53:27,360 --> 00:53:30,000
parties, that is not what the 
contract means at all. 

1115
00:53:30,240 --> 00:53:33,360
It argues that a contract 
actually contains A disjunctive 

1116
00:53:33,360 --> 00:53:37,920
obligation, an either or menu. 
It says I promise to build your 

1117
00:53:37,920 --> 00:53:41,920
deck or RI will pay you your 
expected profit in damages. 

1118
00:53:41,920 --> 00:53:43,640
Exactly. 
And under this theory, 

1119
00:53:43,640 --> 00:53:47,240
expectation damages are not a 
penalty for breaking the rules. 

1120
00:53:47,520 --> 00:53:49,680
They are not a punishment for a 
moral failing. 

1121
00:53:49,920 --> 00:53:52,160
They are a form of specific 
performance. 

1122
00:53:52,280 --> 00:53:54,920
That is wild. 
You are specifically performing 

1123
00:53:54,920 --> 00:53:58,360
the second option, the transfer 
term of the contract, by 

1124
00:53:58,360 --> 00:54:00,280
transferring the wealth you 
promised. 

1125
00:54:00,400 --> 00:54:03,760
This is where people's moral 
intuition violently rejects the 

1126
00:54:03,760 --> 00:54:05,520
law. 
Let me put push back on this on 

1127
00:54:05,520 --> 00:54:08,280
behalf of everyone listening. 
Let's say I own a factory and I 

1128
00:54:08,280 --> 00:54:11,000
contract to sell you my entire 
inventory of widgets for 

1129
00:54:11,000 --> 00:54:13,080
$100,000. 
The next day. 

1130
00:54:13,280 --> 00:54:18,400
A desperate third party comes 
along and offers me $150,000 for

1131
00:54:18,400 --> 00:54:22,400
those same widgets under the 
theory of efficient breach. 

1132
00:54:22,760 --> 00:54:26,080
The law says it is perfectly 
fine and even encouraged for me 

1133
00:54:26,080 --> 00:54:29,320
to intentionally break my 
promise to you, sell the widgets

1134
00:54:29,320 --> 00:54:32,160
to the new guy, toss you the 
profit you would have made as 

1135
00:54:32,160 --> 00:54:35,160
damages, and walk away with more
money in my pocket. 

1136
00:54:35,160 --> 00:54:38,600
Yep, you were telling me the law
endorses backstabbing for 

1137
00:54:38,600 --> 00:54:41,280
profit. 
Yes, that is exactly what the 

1138
00:54:41,280 --> 00:54:42,920
theory of efficient breach 
dictates. 

1139
00:54:42,960 --> 00:54:46,400
It removes all the morality, all
the sentimentality from the word

1140
00:54:46,400 --> 00:54:48,960
promise. 
It treats a contract not as a 

1141
00:54:48,960 --> 00:54:52,320
bullet oath, but as a priced 
economic commodity. 

1142
00:54:52,320 --> 00:54:54,200
But how does society justify 
that? 

1143
00:54:54,440 --> 00:54:57,040
It feels so wrong. 
Because society believes this 

1144
00:54:57,040 --> 00:55:00,200
approach maximizes overall 
societal wealth. 

1145
00:55:00,920 --> 00:55:02,120
Think about where the widgets 
ended up. 

1146
00:55:02,120 --> 00:55:04,920
In your example, they ended up 
with a third party, the person 

1147
00:55:04,920 --> 00:55:07,560
who valued them the most, as 
proven by his willingness to pay

1148
00:55:07,560 --> 00:55:10,560
the highest price. 
You, the factory owner made more

1149
00:55:10,560 --> 00:55:13,960
money which you can reinvest in 
your business and I, the 

1150
00:55:13,960 --> 00:55:17,560
original buyer, received my 
expectation damages, meaning I 

1151
00:55:17,560 --> 00:55:20,600
am in the exact same financial 
position I expected to be in. 

1152
00:55:20,920 --> 00:55:24,080
Everyone wins, resources are 
allocated to that highest use, 

1153
00:55:24,280 --> 00:55:28,200
and society is richer. 
It is a cold, calculating, 

1154
00:55:28,200 --> 00:55:31,160
purely mathematical view of 
human relationships. 

1155
00:55:31,160 --> 00:55:34,600
It is, and this is a critical 
piece of exam strategy. 

1156
00:55:35,160 --> 00:55:38,440
When you are writing a contracts
essay, you must remain wholly 

1157
00:55:38,440 --> 00:55:41,240
objective. 
Do not use moralizing language. 

1158
00:55:41,240 --> 00:55:45,080
Do not call the breaching party 
evil or malicious or a bad 

1159
00:55:45,080 --> 00:55:46,560
actor. 
Don't get emotional about it. 

1160
00:55:46,640 --> 00:55:49,400
Contract law doesn't care about 
your soul, it cares about your 

1161
00:55:49,400 --> 00:55:51,280
wallet. 
Which perfectly explains the 

1162
00:55:51,280 --> 00:55:53,960
rule regarding punitive damages 
in tort law. 

1163
00:55:53,960 --> 00:55:56,960
If you intentionally punch 
someone in the face, the court 

1164
00:55:56,960 --> 00:55:59,520
will hit you with massive 
punitive damages to punish your 

1165
00:55:59,520 --> 00:56:02,280
bad behavior. 
But in contract law. 

1166
00:56:02,680 --> 00:56:04,960
Punitive damages generally do 
not exist. 

1167
00:56:05,120 --> 00:56:08,200
If a breach is just an efficient
pricing mechanism and exercise 

1168
00:56:08,200 --> 00:56:11,480
of a pre negotiated option, it 
isn't a moral failing. 

1169
00:56:11,800 --> 00:56:14,160
We do not punish people for 
efficiently allocating 

1170
00:56:14,160 --> 00:56:16,200
resources. 
Are there any exceptions? 

1171
00:56:16,320 --> 00:56:19,160
What if the breach is just 
flagrantly malicious? 

1172
00:56:19,440 --> 00:56:21,000
Very rarely there are 
exceptions. 

1173
00:56:21,200 --> 00:56:23,560
If the breach of contract is 
accompanied by an independent 

1174
00:56:23,560 --> 00:56:27,680
tort like fraud, you can get 
punitive damages for the fraud. 

1175
00:56:28,280 --> 00:56:31,160
OK, Also, in a few jurisdictions
like California, there is a 

1176
00:56:31,280 --> 00:56:34,560
concept of bad faith breach. 
The famous Seaman's case 

1177
00:56:34,560 --> 00:56:37,760
established that if a party goes
out of their way to maliciously 

1178
00:56:37,760 --> 00:56:40,840
deny that the contract even 
exists, forcing the other party 

1179
00:56:40,840 --> 00:56:44,400
into expensive litigation just 
to bankrupt them, that rare 

1180
00:56:44,400 --> 00:56:47,800
level of bad faith can trigger 
extra compensatory damages. 

1181
00:56:47,880 --> 00:56:51,560
But those are extreme outliers. 
They are The baseline rule 

1182
00:56:51,560 --> 00:56:54,680
remains breach is an economic 
decision, not a crime. 

1183
00:56:54,880 --> 00:56:57,040
It really reframes the entire 
subject. 

1184
00:56:57,840 --> 00:57:02,120
We have spent an hour dissecting
the anatomy of an agreement, and

1185
00:57:02,120 --> 00:57:05,920
that brings us to our synthesis.
When top legal minds, the true 

1186
00:57:05,920 --> 00:57:09,120
masters of the craft, look at a 
massive, tangled corporate 

1187
00:57:09,120 --> 00:57:11,400
transaction, they don't 
immediately get lost in the 

1188
00:57:11,400 --> 00:57:14,480
weeds of page 47. 
They zoom out and look for the 

1189
00:57:14,480 --> 00:57:17,160
three pillars. 
Ascent consideration defenses. 

1190
00:57:17,160 --> 00:57:19,080
That is the architecture of 
private ordering. 

1191
00:57:19,280 --> 00:57:23,360
Pillar one ascent. 
Did the parties actually agree? 

1192
00:57:24,160 --> 00:57:27,040
Was there an objective 
manifestation of an offer and a 

1193
00:57:27,040 --> 00:57:30,640
valid acceptance navigating the 
strict mirror image rule of the 

1194
00:57:30,640 --> 00:57:34,160
common law or the chaotic battle
of the forms under the UCC? 

1195
00:57:34,680 --> 00:57:38,480
Pillar 2 consideration Was there
a genuine bargain? 

1196
00:57:38,720 --> 00:57:42,240
Did both sides suffer a legal 
detriment, trading value for 

1197
00:57:42,240 --> 00:57:44,200
value? 
Or was it just an unenforceable 

1198
00:57:44,200 --> 00:57:49,720
naked promise to give a gift? 
Pillar 3 defenses Even if they 

1199
00:57:49,720 --> 00:57:52,600
agreed and bargained, is there a
legal reason to stop 

1200
00:57:52,600 --> 00:57:54,680
enforcement? 
Did someone pull a kill switch 

1201
00:57:54,680 --> 00:57:57,480
like the Statute of Frauds, 
mental incapacity or 

1202
00:57:57,480 --> 00:57:59,920
unconscionability? 
And if the contract survives 

1203
00:57:59,920 --> 00:58:02,200
those 3 pillars, you interpret 
the four corners of the 

1204
00:58:02,200 --> 00:58:05,320
document, evaluate whether the 
performance was substantial or 

1205
00:58:05,320 --> 00:58:08,480
materially breached, and apply 
the economic remedy to make the 

1206
00:58:08,480 --> 00:58:11,640
victim financially whole. 
By mastering these mechanics, 

1207
00:58:11,640 --> 00:58:14,520
you aren't just memorizing rules
for a test, you are gaining the 

1208
00:58:14,520 --> 00:58:17,240
ability to read the invisible 
code of modern commerce. 

1209
00:58:17,640 --> 00:58:20,080
You are learning how to predict 
the future and manage risk. 

1210
00:58:20,240 --> 00:58:23,360
From a simple retail purchase to
a multi billion dollar corporate

1211
00:58:23,360 --> 00:58:26,080
merger, it is a tool of immense 
empowerment. 

1212
00:58:26,240 --> 00:58:29,200
We have covered a staggering 
amount of ground today. 

1213
00:58:29,560 --> 00:58:32,240
We have officially mapped the 
law of private ordering. 

1214
00:58:32,280 --> 00:58:34,840
We have indeed. 
And of the broader curriculum 

1215
00:58:34,840 --> 00:58:38,400
sequence of understanding how 
the legal world operates, this 

1216
00:58:38,400 --> 00:58:42,360
fits perfectly. 
We have mastered how private 

1217
00:58:42,360 --> 00:58:45,120
parties create their own laws 
and exchange value. 

1218
00:58:45,560 --> 00:58:48,680
Next time, we might venture into
the realm of property law, 

1219
00:58:48,920 --> 00:58:51,800
exploring what it actually means
to own the things we just 

1220
00:58:51,800 --> 00:58:54,320
contracted for. 
Or perhaps we will dive into 

1221
00:58:54,320 --> 00:58:57,920
Civil Procedure to see the exact
rules of the courtroom arena 

1222
00:58:57,920 --> 00:59:00,200
where these contract disputes 
are actually litigated. 

1223
00:59:00,360 --> 00:59:03,440
Both are essential next steps in
building a comprehensive legal 

1224
00:59:03,440 --> 00:59:05,800
mind. 
But before we sign off, I want 

1225
00:59:05,800 --> 00:59:08,400
to leave you with a final 
provocative thought to Mull 

1226
00:59:08,400 --> 00:59:10,880
over. 
We spent a lot of time analyzing

1227
00:59:10,880 --> 00:59:13,400
that dual performance 
hypothesis, the idea that a 

1228
00:59:13,400 --> 00:59:16,520
contract just says perform or 
pay expectation damages. 

1229
00:59:16,520 --> 00:59:19,080
The efficient breach model, yes.
Think about the profound 

1230
00:59:19,080 --> 00:59:22,160
implications of that theory. 
If the modern legal scholars are

1231
00:59:22,160 --> 00:59:25,280
right, then is a breach of 
contract actually breach it all?

1232
00:59:25,280 --> 00:59:28,720
That is a real head spinner. 
If the contract intrinsically 

1233
00:59:28,720 --> 00:59:33,280
offers you a choice to perform 
or our pay, then choosing to pay

1234
00:59:33,280 --> 00:59:36,920
damages isn't breaking a 
promise, it is simply a party 

1235
00:59:36,920 --> 00:59:40,400
exercising a legal, pre 
negotiated option that was 

1236
00:59:40,400 --> 00:59:43,320
embedded in the very DNA of the 
agreement from the moment it was

1237
00:59:43,320 --> 00:59:44,400
signed. 
Right. 

1238
00:59:44,680 --> 00:59:46,880
It means that every time you 
sign a contract, you aren't 

1239
00:59:46,880 --> 00:59:49,840
swearing an oath to deliver, 
you're just buying a financial 

1240
00:59:49,840 --> 00:59:51,720
call option on your own future 
performance. 

1241
00:59:51,720 --> 00:59:54,680
It turns every human promise 
into a financial derivative. 

1242
00:59:54,680 --> 00:59:57,400
Exactly. 
I invite you to consider how 

1243
00:59:57,400 --> 01:00:01,880
that purely economic, deeply 
unsentimental view of promises. 

1244
01:00:02,240 --> 01:00:04,800
Changes the way you view every 
transaction, every click of I 

1245
01:00:04,800 --> 01:00:07,960
agree and every handshake you 
make in your daily life. 

1246
01:00:08,640 --> 01:00:11,280
Does treating promises as 
commodities make the world more 

1247
01:00:11,280 --> 01:00:14,200
efficient, or does it cost us 
something essential about human 

1248
01:00:14,200 --> 01:00:15,960
trust? 
Something to think about the 

1249
01:00:15,960 --> 01:00:18,040
next time you sign your name on 
the dotted line. 

1250
01:00:18,360 --> 01:00:21,800
All right, welcome class. 
Today we are taking an absolute 

1251
01:00:21,800 --> 01:00:24,280
deep dive into the life cycle of
a contract. 

1252
01:00:24,480 --> 01:00:27,520
We're going to deconstruct the 
law of private ordering to give 

1253
01:00:27,520 --> 01:00:30,960
you what you need most exam 
ready mastery of what I like to 

1254
01:00:30,960 --> 01:00:34,440
call the agreement engine. 
Treat this as your comprehensive

1255
01:00:34,440 --> 01:00:37,240
1L blueprint. 
You see, if torts is the law of 

1256
01:00:37,240 --> 01:00:40,000
accidents and criminal law is 
the law of public order 

1257
01:00:40,280 --> 01:00:43,000
contracts, well, contracts is 
the law that actually let's 

1258
01:00:43,000 --> 01:00:46,280
individuals and businesses build
their own mini laws that the 

1259
01:00:46,280 --> 01:00:49,720
state will actively enforce. 
It's incredibly powerful stuff. 

1260
01:00:50,560 --> 01:00:53,120
So let's take a quick look at 
the syllabus for today's 

1261
01:00:53,120 --> 01:00:55,200
explainer. 
We're going to cover 1 the 

1262
01:00:55,200 --> 01:00:59,080
formation metrics, 2. 
UCC versus common law, 3. 

1263
01:00:59,200 --> 01:01:02,800
Defenses, the kill switches, 4 
performance and breach, and 

1264
01:01:02,800 --> 01:01:06,520
finally 5 remedies. 
The restoration lab starting 

1265
01:01:06,520 --> 01:01:10,840
right off with Part 1, the 
formation matrix Mutual ascent. 

1266
01:01:11,040 --> 01:01:13,160
Let's get the engine started. 
Now. 

1267
01:01:13,160 --> 01:01:16,280
How do we actually know if two 
parties assented to a deal? 

1268
01:01:16,600 --> 01:01:19,080
We use the objective theory of 
contracts. 

1269
01:01:19,640 --> 01:01:22,520
The absolute crucial point here 
is that we do not care what the 

1270
01:01:22,520 --> 01:01:25,280
parties secretly thought or 
intended in their own heads. 

1271
01:01:25,600 --> 01:01:27,480
The law just isn't a mind 
reader. 

1272
01:01:27,800 --> 01:01:30,800
We only care what a reasonable 
person would believe based on 

1273
01:01:30,800 --> 01:01:32,720
their objective outward 
behavior. 

1274
01:01:33,120 --> 01:01:35,800
So if you're totally joking on 
the inside, but you sign a 

1275
01:01:35,800 --> 01:01:38,000
formal document on the outside, 
guess what? 

1276
01:01:38,000 --> 01:01:40,520
The law binds you to that 
outward manifestation. 

1277
01:01:40,920 --> 01:01:44,080
And that brings us to the very 
first element of mutual assent, 

1278
01:01:44,280 --> 01:01:47,320
the offer. 
An offer is a manifestation of 

1279
01:01:47,320 --> 01:01:49,200
willingness to enter into a 
bargain. 

1280
01:01:49,760 --> 01:01:53,120
A major, major exam pillar to 
remember here is that an offer 

1281
01:01:53,120 --> 01:01:56,360
must be communicated in a way 
that gives the offeree the power

1282
01:01:56,360 --> 01:02:00,160
to conclude the deal instantly 
with a simple, unequivocal yes. 

1283
01:02:00,720 --> 01:02:03,720
Look, if I say to you, hey, I'm 
thinking about selling my car 

1284
01:02:03,720 --> 01:02:06,840
for $5000, that is merely an 
invitation to negotiate. 

1285
01:02:07,200 --> 01:02:10,480
An actual offer has to put the 
power of acceptance entirely in 

1286
01:02:10,480 --> 01:02:15,160
the other person's hands. 
Moving on to Part 2, UCC versus 

1287
01:02:15,160 --> 01:02:17,520
common law. 
Two different gears. 

1288
01:02:18,360 --> 01:02:20,760
OK, listen up, because this is 
where so many students drop 

1289
01:02:20,760 --> 01:02:23,040
points on the exam. 
You have to know which gear 

1290
01:02:23,040 --> 01:02:25,240
you're in. 
The common law governs services,

1291
01:02:25,240 --> 01:02:28,080
real estate and employment, but 
the Uniform Commercial Code, 

1292
01:02:28,080 --> 01:02:31,560
specifically Article 2, governs 
the sale of tangible movable 

1293
01:02:31,560 --> 01:02:33,400
goods. 
Do not cross the streams. 

1294
01:02:33,840 --> 01:02:36,840
For example, at common law, a 
contract must explicitly state 

1295
01:02:36,840 --> 01:02:39,160
all essential terms. 
We remember this with the 

1296
01:02:39,160 --> 01:02:44,000
acronym QITIPS, quantity, time, 
identity of parties, price and 

1297
01:02:44,000 --> 01:02:46,880
subject matter. 
But the UCC, it's way more 

1298
01:02:46,880 --> 01:02:48,920
flexible because it wants to 
facilitate commerce. 

1299
01:02:49,240 --> 01:02:52,200
The only truly essential term it
requires to form a contract is 

1300
01:02:52,200 --> 01:02:54,680
quantity. 
Plus, common law requires new 

1301
01:02:54,680 --> 01:02:57,640
consideration to modify a deal 
because of the pre-existing duty

1302
01:02:57,640 --> 01:03:00,640
rule, whereas the UCC it just 
requires good faith. 

1303
01:03:01,320 --> 01:03:03,920
What's really fascinating here 
is how these two systems handle 

1304
01:03:03,920 --> 01:03:07,440
the acceptance itself. 
The common law demands the rigid

1305
01:03:07,440 --> 01:03:10,200
mirror image rule. 
Literally, if your acceptance 

1306
01:03:10,200 --> 01:03:13,760
changes even one tiny detail of 
the original offer, it operates 

1307
01:03:13,760 --> 01:03:15,480
as a full rejection and a 
counter offer. 

1308
01:03:15,480 --> 01:03:18,960
It kills the original deal. 
But the UCC completely abandons 

1309
01:03:18,960 --> 01:03:22,320
that rigidity with Section 2-27,
which is famously known as the 

1310
01:03:22,320 --> 01:03:25,480
Battle of the Forms, to 
accommodate modern boilerplate 

1311
01:03:25,480 --> 01:03:28,040
business exchanges. 
And acceptance under the UCC is 

1312
01:03:28,040 --> 01:03:30,520
generally valid, even if it 
introduces additional or 

1313
01:03:30,520 --> 01:03:32,640
different terms. 
Well, unless the exceptions is 

1314
01:03:32,640 --> 01:03:34,200
expressed. 
They made conditional on those 

1315
01:03:34,200 --> 01:03:36,160
new terms, of course. 
All right. 

1316
01:03:36,160 --> 01:03:39,280
Part 3 defenses the kill 
switches. 

1317
01:03:39,560 --> 01:03:43,200
Let's see how deals fall apart. 
Our first massive kill switch is

1318
01:03:43,200 --> 01:03:46,280
the Statute of Frauds. 
Basically, certain contracts are

1319
01:03:46,280 --> 01:03:49,880
so susceptible to lies and fraud
that the law explicitly demands 

1320
01:03:49,880 --> 01:03:52,280
they be in writing and signed by
the party to be charged. 

1321
01:03:52,600 --> 01:03:55,480
Memorize the my legs mnemonic 
marriage provisions. 

1322
01:03:55,520 --> 01:03:58,280
Contracts that cannot possibly 
be performed within one year. 

1323
01:03:58,520 --> 01:04:02,680
Land sales executive promises 
goods for $500 or more and 

1324
01:04:02,680 --> 01:04:05,200
surety, which is just 
guaranteeing the debt of another

1325
01:04:05,200 --> 01:04:06,960
person. 
And don't forget your exam 

1326
01:04:06,960 --> 01:04:09,320
exceptions here. 
Full performance, judicial 

1327
01:04:09,320 --> 01:04:12,120
acknowledgement and detrimental 
reliance can actually sometimes 

1328
01:04:12,120 --> 01:04:14,720
save an oral contract that 
technically should have been in 

1329
01:04:14,720 --> 01:04:17,440
writing. 
Next up, we look at flaws in the

1330
01:04:17,440 --> 01:04:19,760
actual consent process. 
Minors. 

1331
01:04:19,880 --> 01:04:23,280
So anyone under 18 and the 
mentally incompetent lack legal 

1332
01:04:23,280 --> 01:04:26,080
capacity, meaning they can 
generally disaffirm their 

1333
01:04:26,080 --> 01:04:28,720
contracts. 
Then we have coercion. 

1334
01:04:29,240 --> 01:04:32,360
Physical duress, like putting a 
literal gun to someone's head, 

1335
01:04:32,640 --> 01:04:35,200
completely voids a contract 
right out of the gate. 

1336
01:04:35,400 --> 01:04:38,880
But economic duress or undue 
influence, which is taking 

1337
01:04:38,880 --> 01:04:41,360
unfair advantage of a 
relationship of trust, like a 

1338
01:04:41,360 --> 01:04:44,360
caregiver manipulating an 
elderly patient that renders the

1339
01:04:44,360 --> 01:04:47,680
contract voidable by the victim.
That distinction is key. 

1340
01:04:48,320 --> 01:04:51,520
And then we have mistake. 
Guys, I cannot stress this 

1341
01:04:51,520 --> 01:04:53,200
enough. 
Do not mix these two up on your 

1342
01:04:53,200 --> 01:04:55,400
exam. 
A mutual mistake occurs when 

1343
01:04:55,400 --> 01:04:58,160
both parties are wrong about a 
basic underlying assumption of 

1344
01:04:58,160 --> 01:05:00,240
the deal. 
Like say you're buying a cow 

1345
01:05:00,240 --> 01:05:03,280
that you both genuinely thought 
was barren, but surprised it 

1346
01:05:03,280 --> 01:05:07,120
turns out she's pregnant. 
That contract is voidable, but a

1347
01:05:07,120 --> 01:05:10,160
unilateral mistake where only 
one party messes up their own 

1348
01:05:10,160 --> 01:05:13,160
math or assumptions, Yeah, that 
is generally not going to save 

1349
01:05:13,160 --> 01:05:15,160
your client. 
The only exception is if the 

1350
01:05:15,160 --> 01:05:18,600
other side actually knew or had 
reason to know of the error and 

1351
01:05:18,600 --> 01:05:20,600
just try to unfairly take 
advantage of it. 

1352
01:05:21,000 --> 01:05:24,080
Let's shift gears to part 4 
performance and breach the 

1353
01:05:24,120 --> 01:05:26,720
output. 
OK, let's dive into this 

1354
01:05:26,720 --> 01:05:29,360
critical distinction. 
Because not all breaches are 

1355
01:05:29,360 --> 01:05:32,600
created equal. 
A material breach is a failure 

1356
01:05:32,600 --> 01:05:35,560
so massive that the innocent 
party is deprived of the 

1357
01:05:35,560 --> 01:05:37,240
substantial benefit of their 
bargain. 

1358
01:05:37,920 --> 01:05:40,760
Crucially, a material breach 
acts as an exit ramp. 

1359
01:05:40,960 --> 01:05:43,600
It totally excuses the non 
breaching party from their own 

1360
01:05:43,600 --> 01:05:45,920
performance obligations. 
You can just walk away. 

1361
01:05:46,680 --> 01:05:49,280
A minor breach, on the other 
hand, means substantial 

1362
01:05:49,280 --> 01:05:51,760
performance was achieved despite
a small error. 

1363
01:05:52,200 --> 01:05:54,520
Think of a builder using the 
wrong brand of pipes, but 

1364
01:05:54,520 --> 01:05:56,960
they're of equal quality for a 
minor breach. 

1365
01:05:56,960 --> 01:05:59,440
The innocent party still has to 
perform their end of the deal, 

1366
01:05:59,600 --> 01:06:02,560
but they can deduct the monetary
damages caused by that specific 

1367
01:06:02,560 --> 01:06:05,240
error. 
But what if the breakdown is 

1368
01:06:05,240 --> 01:06:08,400
announced ahead of time? 
We call that anticipatory 

1369
01:06:08,400 --> 01:06:10,960
repudiation. 
If a party clearly and 

1370
01:06:11,040 --> 01:06:14,280
unequivocally states they are 
going to breach before the 

1371
01:06:14,280 --> 01:06:17,480
actual deadline for performance 
even arrives, you don't have to 

1372
01:06:17,480 --> 01:06:19,640
just sit around twiddling your 
thumbs waiting for the 

1373
01:06:19,640 --> 01:06:22,240
inevitable disaster. 
The law is practical. 

1374
01:06:22,440 --> 01:06:25,080
It allows you to treat that 
clear repudiation as an 

1375
01:06:25,080 --> 01:06:28,320
immediate material breach, which
means you can stop your own 

1376
01:06:28,320 --> 01:06:30,000
performance and sue them right 
away. 

1377
01:06:30,560 --> 01:06:33,560
Now, sometimes the engine stops 
through absolutely nobody's 

1378
01:06:33,560 --> 01:06:35,680
fault. 
Your exam is absolutely going to

1379
01:06:35,680 --> 01:06:38,680
test your ability to spot these 
three distinct excuses. 

1380
01:06:39,120 --> 01:06:41,960
Impossibility means, 
objectively, no one on earth 

1381
01:06:41,960 --> 01:06:45,200
could perform, for example, the 
concert hall you rented burned 

1382
01:06:45,200 --> 01:06:48,080
to the ground. 
Impracticality means performance

1383
01:06:48,080 --> 01:06:50,360
is technically possible, but 
it's become excessively 

1384
01:06:50,360 --> 01:06:53,920
burdensome or insanely expensive
due to a totally unforeseen 

1385
01:06:53,920 --> 01:06:55,760
event and frustration of 
purpose. 

1386
01:06:55,960 --> 01:06:58,160
That means you could still 
perform, but the entire 

1387
01:06:58,160 --> 01:07:00,640
underlying reason you entered 
the contract has vanished. 

1388
01:07:00,920 --> 01:07:03,600
Like renting A balcony at a 
premium price just to watch a 

1389
01:07:03,600 --> 01:07:05,520
specific parade. 
And then the parade gets 

1390
01:07:05,520 --> 01:07:08,400
abruptly cancelled. 
And that brings us to Part 5, 

1391
01:07:08,600 --> 01:07:12,880
Remedies, The Restoration Lab. 
Write this foundational policy 

1392
01:07:12,880 --> 01:07:14,880
rationale at the top of your 
scratch paper. 

1393
01:07:15,080 --> 01:07:18,720
The primary goal of contract 
remedies is compensation, not 

1394
01:07:18,720 --> 01:07:21,280
punishment. 
Contract law generally doesn't 

1395
01:07:21,280 --> 01:07:24,120
care about moral fault, and 
punitive damages are 

1396
01:07:24,120 --> 01:07:27,080
exceptionally rare. 
So the crucial take away here is

1397
01:07:27,080 --> 01:07:29,800
that we're trying to protect the
expectation interest. 

1398
01:07:30,080 --> 01:07:33,080
Our entire goal is to put the 
plaintiff in the exact economic 

1399
01:07:33,080 --> 01:07:35,320
position they would have 
occupied if the contract had 

1400
01:07:35,320 --> 01:07:38,800
been Florida State performed. 
To achieve that, we use the 

1401
01:07:38,800 --> 01:07:42,040
expectations damages formula, 
and you need to treat this 

1402
01:07:42,040 --> 01:07:44,000
calculation with mathematical 
strictness. 

1403
01:07:44,000 --> 01:07:46,160
On your essays, You take the 
value of the promised 

1404
01:07:46,160 --> 01:07:48,960
performance, subtract the value 
of any actual performance 

1405
01:07:48,960 --> 01:07:52,000
received, and then add any 
foreseeable, incidental, or 

1406
01:07:52,000 --> 01:07:54,320
consequential losses that were 
caused by the breach. 

1407
01:07:54,800 --> 01:07:58,280
This calculation accurately and 
fairly measures the loss benefit

1408
01:07:58,280 --> 01:08:01,000
of the bargain. 
But what happens if expectation 

1409
01:08:01,000 --> 01:08:03,160
damages are just too speculative
to prove? 

1410
01:08:03,440 --> 01:08:06,080
You know, you can't just guess 
what a brand new business's lost

1411
01:08:06,080 --> 01:08:08,400
profits might have been. 
In that scenario, you have to 

1412
01:08:08,400 --> 01:08:12,280
pivot your analysis to reliance 
or restitution to make the 

1413
01:08:12,280 --> 01:08:15,200
injured party whole. 
Reliance damages reimburse out 

1414
01:08:15,200 --> 01:08:17,840
of pocket costs, putting the 
plaintiff back exactly where 

1415
01:08:17,840 --> 01:08:19,560
they were before the contract 
was ever signed. 

1416
01:08:20,080 --> 01:08:22,680
Restitution approaches it from 
the exact opposite side. 

1417
01:08:22,840 --> 01:08:25,880
It forces the breaching party to
hand over any unjust enrichment 

1418
01:08:25,880 --> 01:08:28,080
they received. 
Think of forcing A breaching 

1419
01:08:28,080 --> 01:08:29,920
seller to return a buyer's down 
payment. 

1420
01:08:30,680 --> 01:08:33,560
Of course, sometimes money 
simply isn't enough to fix the 

1421
01:08:33,560 --> 01:08:35,520
problem. 
That is when courts consider 

1422
01:08:35,520 --> 01:08:38,560
specific performance. 
This is an extraordinary 

1423
01:08:38,560 --> 01:08:41,520
equitable remedy, ordering the 
breaching party to actually do 

1424
01:08:41,520 --> 01:08:43,720
the thing they promised. 
But hear me on this. 

1425
01:08:43,720 --> 01:08:46,800
It is strictly reserved for real
estate or highly unique goods 

1426
01:08:47,000 --> 01:08:48,680
like a one-of-a-kind rare 
painting. 

1427
01:08:48,920 --> 01:08:51,680
And crucially, courts will 
never, ever force specific 

1428
01:08:51,680 --> 01:08:53,840
performance for personal service
contracts. 

1429
01:08:54,279 --> 01:08:56,840
This rule reflects A strict 
constitutional boundary. 

1430
01:08:57,080 --> 01:09:00,000
Forcing someone to work against 
their will too closely resembles

1431
01:09:00,000 --> 01:09:02,960
involuntary servitude, so the 
courts simply won't do it. 

1432
01:09:03,439 --> 01:09:06,279
Now let's bring all of this 
together into our ultimate 

1433
01:09:06,279 --> 01:09:09,000
synthesis. 
Every single contract essay you 

1434
01:09:09,000 --> 01:09:12,479
will ever write or real world 
case you analyze boils down to 

1435
01:09:12,479 --> 01:09:16,240
these three pillars. 1 Ascent. 
Did they actually agree through 

1436
01:09:16,240 --> 01:09:19,200
a valid offer and acceptance? 
2 consideration. 

1437
01:09:19,439 --> 01:09:23,200
Was there a bargain for exchange
of value and three defenses? 

1438
01:09:23,399 --> 01:09:25,920
Is there a legal kill switch 
that stops enforcement? 

1439
01:09:26,279 --> 01:09:29,279
If you methodically verify these
three pillars every time you 

1440
01:09:29,279 --> 01:09:32,120
will Florida State navigate the 
mechanics of private ordering 

1441
01:09:32,720 --> 01:09:34,920
class. 
You have now officially mastered

1442
01:09:34,920 --> 01:09:36,840
the mechanics of the agreement 
engine. 

1443
01:09:37,080 --> 01:09:40,000
You've successfully audited the 
foundational subjects of torts, 

1444
01:09:40,120 --> 01:09:43,560
criminal law, and now contracts.
So I want to leave you with this

1445
01:09:43,560 --> 01:09:46,560
final thought to ponder. 
What area of law are you going 

1446
01:09:46,560 --> 01:09:48,960
to conquer next? 
Now that you really understand 

1447
01:09:48,960 --> 01:09:51,800
how private agreements govern 
our world, Are you ready to 

1448
01:09:51,800 --> 01:09:54,480
venture into the ownership shoot
of property law? 

1449
01:09:54,880 --> 01:09:57,880
Keep this blueprint handy, 
review your pillars, and I will 

1450
01:09:57,880 --> 01:09:59,640
see you in our next deep dive.