1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,560
All right, Hey everyone, welcome
back to another deep dive. 

2
00:00:02,800 --> 00:00:06,000
Buckle up, because today we're 
getting into the nitty gritty of

3
00:00:06,000 --> 00:00:08,600
contract law. 
And don't worry, you're in good 

4
00:00:08,600 --> 00:00:10,480
hands. 
We're not just skimming the 

5
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,520
surface, we're diving deep into 
those juicy bits that your 

6
00:00:13,520 --> 00:00:15,560
professors love to throw on 
exams. 

7
00:00:15,560 --> 00:00:18,480
You know it, We've got 3 
lectures worth of notes here, 

8
00:00:18,480 --> 00:00:21,760
all about contract formation, 
performance and breach, and of 

9
00:00:21,760 --> 00:00:24,040
course those tricky third party 
rights. 

10
00:00:24,040 --> 00:00:25,760
Yeah, and let's be real, 
contract law. 

11
00:00:26,080 --> 00:00:29,680
It can feel like a dense forest 
of rules and exceptions. 

12
00:00:30,040 --> 00:00:32,800
Absolutely. 
So our mission today to give you

13
00:00:32,800 --> 00:00:35,880
that clear road map, those real 
world examples, and to highlight

14
00:00:35,880 --> 00:00:38,840
those subtle distinctions that 
can really make or break your 

15
00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:40,360
analysis. 
Especially those tricky 

16
00:00:40,360 --> 00:00:44,200
differences between how 
contracts work for, say, goods 

17
00:00:44,200 --> 00:00:46,320
versus services. 
You know those things that trip 

18
00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:47,880
people up? 
For sure, for sure. 

19
00:00:48,120 --> 00:00:49,800
All right, so let's jump right 
into the heart of it. 

20
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:54,760
Lecture 1 kicks off with that 
fundamental question, what is a 

21
00:00:54,760 --> 00:00:57,600
contract, legally speaking? 
I mean, we all have a general 

22
00:00:57,600 --> 00:01:00,880
idea, but what transforms a 
casual promise into something a 

23
00:01:00,880 --> 00:01:03,920
court will actually enforce? 
Yeah, great question. 

24
00:01:03,920 --> 00:01:07,280
So a contract, it's not just a 
handshake or a friendly 

25
00:01:07,280 --> 00:01:10,920
agreement, it's a legally 
enforceable promise, meaning 

26
00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:14,240
courts can step in, enforce the 
terms. 

27
00:01:14,360 --> 00:01:17,840
If one party doesn't hold U 
their end of the bargain, it's 

28
00:01:17,840 --> 00:01:20,600
got teeth. 
It's got some real consequences 

29
00:01:20,600 --> 00:01:22,160
if you break it. 
Exactly. 

30
00:01:22,160 --> 00:01:26,280
OK, so the lecture emphasizes 3 
key elements for a valid 

31
00:01:26,280 --> 00:01:30,080
contract offer acceptance 
consideration. 

32
00:01:30,280 --> 00:01:32,560
Sounds simple enough, but I'm 
sure it's more nuanced than 

33
00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:33,800
that, right? 
Absolutely. 

34
00:01:33,920 --> 00:01:36,880
Each of these has its own set of
rules, its own little quirks. 

35
00:01:37,080 --> 00:01:40,160
Let's start with offer an offer.
It's not just a vague idea. 

36
00:01:40,160 --> 00:01:42,080
It's not an invitation to 
negotiate. 

37
00:01:42,280 --> 00:01:45,240
It has to be a clear definite. 
Like this is what I'm willing to

38
00:01:45,240 --> 00:01:47,440
be bound by right now if you say
yes. 

39
00:01:47,440 --> 00:01:50,480
So if I say, hey, I might be 
interested in selling those old 

40
00:01:50,480 --> 00:01:53,120
textbooks of mine, right? 
That's not an offer. 

41
00:01:53,280 --> 00:01:55,120
Not legally. 
It doesn't have that 

42
00:01:55,120 --> 00:01:57,320
specificity, that commitment 
that we're looking for. 

43
00:01:57,560 --> 00:01:59,760
So definiteness is key when 
we're talking offers. 

44
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:02,720
OK, what about acceptance then? 
Is it just a matter of saying 

45
00:02:02,720 --> 00:02:06,600
yes, or are there rules about 
how an offer has to be accepted?

46
00:02:06,840 --> 00:02:09,759
Well, under common law, 
acceptance has to mirror the 

47
00:02:09,759 --> 00:02:12,440
offers terms exactly. 
It's called the mirror image 

48
00:02:12,440 --> 00:02:14,880
rule. 
Any little change, any addition,

49
00:02:15,160 --> 00:02:18,160
and boom, you've got yourself a 
counter offer, which is 

50
00:02:18,160 --> 00:02:21,200
basically a rejection of the 
original offer and a brand new 

51
00:02:21,200 --> 00:02:23,720
one being put on the table. 
Wow, that's pretty strict. 

52
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:27,480
So like someone offers to sell 
me a car for $5000, I say I'll 

53
00:02:27,480 --> 00:02:30,240
take it, but for $4500 that's 
not an acceptance. 

54
00:02:30,240 --> 00:02:33,000
Nope, that's a counter offer. 
Puts the ball right back in the 

55
00:02:33,000 --> 00:02:35,400
original offers court. 
Now they decide whether to 

56
00:02:35,400 --> 00:02:38,240
accept your counter, make a new 
offer, or just walk away. 

57
00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:39,800
It's a little bit of a dance, 
isn't it? 

58
00:02:40,280 --> 00:02:41,440
It can be. 
It can be. 

59
00:02:41,480 --> 00:02:44,280
One wrong step can mess up the 
whole routine. 

60
00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:47,440
OK, last piece of this contract 
puzzle, we got to talk about 

61
00:02:47,440 --> 00:02:50,760
consideration. 
What makes a promise legally 

62
00:02:50,760 --> 00:02:53,600
enforceable as opposed to just, 
you know, a generous gesture? 

63
00:02:53,880 --> 00:02:55,680
That's where consideration comes
in. 

64
00:02:55,680 --> 00:02:57,840
It's what we call the bargain 
for exchange. 

65
00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:01,240
At the heart of any contract, 
both parties need to give 

66
00:03:01,240 --> 00:03:03,800
something of value in exchange 
for the others. 

67
00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:08,520
Promise could be money, goods, 
services, even a promise to do 

68
00:03:08,520 --> 00:03:10,320
something or not to do something
so. 

69
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:11,600
It's going to be a two way 
street. 

70
00:03:11,600 --> 00:03:14,800
I can't just say, hey, I'm going
to give you my car and expect 

71
00:03:14,800 --> 00:03:16,920
that to be a legally binding 
contract. 

72
00:03:16,920 --> 00:03:19,360
Exactly, there needs to be 
something in it for both sides. 

73
00:03:19,440 --> 00:03:22,280
You know, consideration and make
sure the contract is a true 

74
00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:26,400
bargain, not A1 sided gift. 
It prevents coercion to make 

75
00:03:26,400 --> 00:03:28,920
sure people aren't just forced 
into promises without getting 

76
00:03:28,920 --> 00:03:31,120
something back. 
So it creates a sense of 

77
00:03:31,120 --> 00:03:34,840
fairness, reciprocity. 
But the lecture mentions that 

78
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:38,240
consideration can't be something
you're already obligated to do. 

79
00:03:38,680 --> 00:03:41,080
What's that about? 
Right, that's the pre-existing 

80
00:03:41,080 --> 00:03:44,080
duty rule. 
Like say you hire a contractor 

81
00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:47,360
to build you a deck for 10 
grand, and then halfway through 

82
00:03:47,360 --> 00:03:49,920
they demand an extra 2 grand to 
finish the job. 

83
00:03:50,680 --> 00:03:53,400
That's not valid consideration 
because they were already 

84
00:03:53,400 --> 00:03:56,240
legally bound to complete that 
deck for the agreed upon price. 

85
00:03:56,240 --> 00:03:57,720
So. 
It's like you can't hold an 

86
00:03:57,720 --> 00:04:01,120
existing obligation hostage to 
squeeze out more benefits. 

87
00:04:01,120 --> 00:04:02,720
Exactly. 
Exactly. 

88
00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:05,560
But keep in mind there are 
exceptions, especially in the 

89
00:04:05,560 --> 00:04:09,960
UCC world, where modifications 
made in good faith, those often 

90
00:04:09,960 --> 00:04:12,320
don't need new consideration. 
We'll get to that. 

91
00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:13,960
OK. 
So we've got our three main 

92
00:04:13,960 --> 00:04:19,200
ingredients, offer acceptance 
and consideration, but the 

93
00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:22,600
lecture also delves into 
defenses, those situations where

94
00:04:22,600 --> 00:04:26,400
a contract might look like a 
contract but it's not actually 

95
00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:28,920
enforceable. 
What are some of the big ones we

96
00:04:28,920 --> 00:04:32,400
need to have on our radar? 
So even if we have all three 

97
00:04:32,400 --> 00:04:36,840
elements offer acceptance 
consideration, a contract can be

98
00:04:36,840 --> 00:04:39,880
attacked using certain defenses.
These are kind of like legal 

99
00:04:39,880 --> 00:04:42,080
loopholes. 
One of the major ones is the 

100
00:04:42,080 --> 00:04:45,640
Statute of Frauds. 
The Statute of Frauds sounds a 

101
00:04:45,640 --> 00:04:47,760
little intimidating. 
It's not as scary as it sounds. 

102
00:04:47,760 --> 00:04:50,720
It basically says that certain 
types of contracts, they must be

103
00:04:50,720 --> 00:04:53,880
in writing to be enforceable, 
helps prevent fraud, make sure 

104
00:04:53,880 --> 00:04:55,440
there's clear evidence of the 
agreement. 

105
00:04:55,440 --> 00:04:57,800
So which contracts fall under 
this statute? 

106
00:04:57,800 --> 00:04:58,920
Is there an easy way to 
remember? 

107
00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:00,840
There is, think my legs. 
My legs. 

108
00:05:00,840 --> 00:05:02,320
OK, break that down for me. 
All right. 

109
00:05:02,320 --> 00:05:05,960
So M is for marriage contracts 
involving marriage, prenuptial 

110
00:05:05,960 --> 00:05:09,560
agreements, that kind of thing. 
Y is for contracts that can't be

111
00:05:09,560 --> 00:05:13,440
performed within one year. 
L is for land contracts for land

112
00:05:13,440 --> 00:05:18,040
real estate, E is for executors 
promised to pay debts, G is for 

113
00:05:18,040 --> 00:05:23,120
goods contracts for the sale of 
goods over $500, and S is for 

114
00:05:23,120 --> 00:05:26,120
surety ship when someone 
promises to pay another person's

115
00:05:26,120 --> 00:05:27,880
debt. 
My legs. 

116
00:05:28,760 --> 00:05:31,320
All right, that's surprisingly 
catchy for such a, well, a 

117
00:05:31,320 --> 00:05:34,680
serious legal concept. 
So if a contract falls into one 

118
00:05:34,680 --> 00:05:36,600
of those categories, it has to 
be in writing. 

119
00:05:36,800 --> 00:05:39,600
No exceptions. 
Generally yes, but like most 

120
00:05:39,600 --> 00:05:42,040
things in law, there are some 
exceptions, like if there's been

121
00:05:42,040 --> 00:05:44,480
partial performance. 
Say you verbally agree to buy a 

122
00:05:44,480 --> 00:05:47,400
custom made couch, you pay a 
deposit and the furniture maker 

123
00:05:47,400 --> 00:05:49,320
starts building it. 
A court might enforce that 

124
00:05:49,320 --> 00:05:51,200
contract even without a written 
agreement. 

125
00:05:51,440 --> 00:05:54,680
So actions can sometimes speak 
louder than words, even in 

126
00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:57,320
contract law. 
What other defenses should we be

127
00:05:57,320 --> 00:05:59,280
aware of? 
Capacity is another big one. 

128
00:05:59,280 --> 00:06:01,920
It's the legal ability to enter 
into a contract. 

129
00:06:01,920 --> 00:06:05,360
So minors for instance, they can
generally void contracts. 

130
00:06:05,680 --> 00:06:09,080
Imagine a 16 year old signing up
for some pricey gym membership. 

131
00:06:09,320 --> 00:06:10,440
They could likely get out of 
that. 

132
00:06:10,800 --> 00:06:13,960
So it's about protecting people 
who maybe don't fully understand

133
00:06:13,960 --> 00:06:15,560
the consequences of their 
actions. 

134
00:06:16,200 --> 00:06:18,680
Are there other situations where
capacity might be an issue? 

135
00:06:18,800 --> 00:06:22,120
Absolutely, yeah. 
Mental incapacity, someone under

136
00:06:22,120 --> 00:06:26,280
the influence of drugs or 
alcohol, those can all impact 

137
00:06:26,280 --> 00:06:28,480
someone's capacity to form a 
binding contract. 

138
00:06:28,800 --> 00:06:31,560
Courts want to make sure 
agreements are made with, you 

139
00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:34,400
know, clear understanding. 
It's about having a level 

140
00:06:34,400 --> 00:06:37,160
playing field protecting 
vulnerable parties. 

141
00:06:37,360 --> 00:06:41,360
What about cases where, like the
subject matter of the contract 

142
00:06:41,360 --> 00:06:43,240
itself is problematic? 
Right. 

143
00:06:43,240 --> 00:06:46,080
That's where illegality and 
public policy come in. 

144
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:48,480
Contracts for illegal 
activities, those are obviously 

145
00:06:48,480 --> 00:06:50,440
unenforceable. 
But even if something's not 

146
00:06:50,440 --> 00:06:53,840
technically illegal, a court 
might refuse to enforce it if it

147
00:06:53,840 --> 00:06:56,920
violates public policy, like a 
contract that's super 

148
00:06:56,920 --> 00:06:59,840
restrictive prevents someone 
from earning a living that could

149
00:06:59,840 --> 00:07:01,840
be thrown out. 
So even if all the technical 

150
00:07:01,840 --> 00:07:06,000
elements are there, a contract 
can be tossed if it violates 

151
00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:09,080
those basic principles of 
fairness or goes against the 

152
00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:10,680
public interest. 
Exactly. 

153
00:07:10,840 --> 00:07:13,200
Courts. 
They're not just robots applying

154
00:07:13,200 --> 00:07:15,920
rules blindly. 
They consider the bigger 

155
00:07:15,920 --> 00:07:17,760
picture. 
This is fascinating. 

156
00:07:17,960 --> 00:07:20,960
OK, what about those situations 
where someone's tricked or 

157
00:07:20,960 --> 00:07:22,640
pressured into signing a 
contract? 

158
00:07:22,680 --> 00:07:25,280
Oh yeah, good point. 
That's where things like 

159
00:07:25,280 --> 00:07:29,160
misrepresentation, fraud, 
duress, undue influence come in.

160
00:07:29,160 --> 00:07:31,280
Someone lied to, misled into 
signing. 

161
00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:32,600
They might be able to get out of
it. 

162
00:07:33,000 --> 00:07:35,520
Someone forced into a contract 
through threats. 

163
00:07:35,520 --> 00:07:38,000
That's duress. 
Contract could be voidable. 

164
00:07:38,160 --> 00:07:41,000
O Even a contract that looks 
valid, it can unravel if there 

165
00:07:41,000 --> 00:07:44,200
are signs of deception, 
pressure, you know, a lack of 

166
00:07:44,200 --> 00:07:46,520
genuine consent. 
Right contract law. 

167
00:07:46,520 --> 00:07:49,000
It's all about upholding 
agreements that are freely and 

168
00:07:49,000 --> 00:07:50,960
fairly made. 
These defenses, they're 

169
00:07:50,960 --> 00:07:55,000
safeguards, Make sure contracts 
reflect real agreement, not some

170
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:57,320
manipulation or exploitation. 
Awesome. 

171
00:07:57,520 --> 00:08:01,600
OK, let's do a quick recap. 
We know contract formation offer

172
00:08:01,720 --> 00:08:06,000
acceptance consideration, but 
even with all that, defenses 

173
00:08:06,000 --> 00:08:09,720
like statute of frauds, lack of 
capacity, illegality, all those 

174
00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:12,600
things we talked about can come 
in and potentially make a 

175
00:08:12,600 --> 00:08:16,080
contract unenforceable. 
That's right, and understanding 

176
00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:19,080
these defenses is crucial, 
especially for analyzing those 

177
00:08:19,080 --> 00:08:21,960
contract law problems. 
It's not just knowing the rules,

178
00:08:21,960 --> 00:08:25,240
it's knowing how to apply them 
in different situations, how 

179
00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:28,200
they can be used to protect the 
rights of all parties involved. 

180
00:08:28,240 --> 00:08:30,080
Absolutely. 
This is incredibly helpful. 

181
00:08:30,280 --> 00:08:31,920
I have to admit. 
It is a lot to wrap your head 

182
00:08:31,920 --> 00:08:32,679
around. 
Oh yeah. 

183
00:08:32,840 --> 00:08:35,440
Any tips for our listeners out 
there, all those diligent law 

184
00:08:35,440 --> 00:08:39,640
students, on how to really make 
sense of this complex world of 

185
00:08:39,640 --> 00:08:42,039
contract law? 
Practice, practice, practice. 

186
00:08:42,039 --> 00:08:44,440
The more you work through those 
hypotheticals, the better you'll

187
00:08:44,440 --> 00:08:46,680
get it. 
Spotting the issues, applying 

188
00:08:46,680 --> 00:08:48,640
the rules. 
Pretend you're a lawyer. 

189
00:08:49,160 --> 00:08:53,360
You're advising a client what 
facts would strengthen their 

190
00:08:53,360 --> 00:08:55,520
case? 
What could the other side argue?

191
00:08:55,800 --> 00:08:59,160
It's that kind of thinking that 
law school exams really demand. 

192
00:08:59,400 --> 00:09:00,720
Yeah, it's like learning a new 
language. 

193
00:09:00,720 --> 00:09:01,920
You got to immerse yourself in 
it. 

194
00:09:02,040 --> 00:09:04,560
Practice makes perfect. 
And the lecture does a good job 

195
00:09:04,560 --> 00:09:05,920
of giving some real life 
examples. 

196
00:09:05,920 --> 00:09:08,440
Like that one about the minor 
trying to back out of a phone 

197
00:09:08,440 --> 00:09:09,800
contract. 
That was a good one. 

198
00:09:09,800 --> 00:09:12,240
Yeah, shows how these capacity 
issues play out in real life. 

199
00:09:12,480 --> 00:09:15,440
OK, so before we move on, the 
lecture wraps up with a point 

200
00:09:15,440 --> 00:09:18,520
we've touched on a couple Times 
Now, that distinction between 

201
00:09:18,520 --> 00:09:22,200
common law contracts and those 
governed by by the Uniform 

202
00:09:22,200 --> 00:09:27,040
Commercial Code, the UCC. 
Why is this such a crucial 

203
00:09:27,040 --> 00:09:30,960
point, especially for U.S. law 
students facing those dreaded 

204
00:09:30,960 --> 00:09:33,600
exams? 
Yeah, this is fundamental common

205
00:09:33,600 --> 00:09:36,280
law that generally covers 
contracts for things like 

206
00:09:36,280 --> 00:09:40,760
services, real estate, whereas 
the UCC specifically addresses 

207
00:09:40,760 --> 00:09:43,960
contracts for the sale of goods.
So if I hire a band to play at 

208
00:09:43,960 --> 00:09:47,400
my graduation party, that's 
common law, but if I buy a new 

209
00:09:47,400 --> 00:09:49,760
sound system for the party, 
that's UCC. 

210
00:09:50,000 --> 00:09:52,320
Nailed it. 
And these two, they have 

211
00:09:52,320 --> 00:09:55,640
different rules, different 
standards for almost every part 

212
00:09:55,640 --> 00:09:58,880
of contract law, formation, 
remedies for breach, you name 

213
00:09:58,880 --> 00:10:00,960
it. 
Remember that mirror image rule 

214
00:10:00,960 --> 00:10:03,840
we talked about for acceptance? 
That's strictly common law. 

215
00:10:04,160 --> 00:10:09,440
The UCC is a bit more chill. 
So step one is figuring out are 

216
00:10:09,440 --> 00:10:12,560
we talking goods or services? 
Then we know which set of rules 

217
00:10:12,560 --> 00:10:14,480
to pull out. 
Seems like a pretty crucial 

218
00:10:14,480 --> 00:10:16,120
point for exam success. 
Oh. 

219
00:10:16,200 --> 00:10:18,040
Absolutely. 
It's about using the right tool 

220
00:10:18,040 --> 00:10:20,760
for the job. 
You know, applying common law to

221
00:10:20,760 --> 00:10:23,640
a UCC case or vice versa. 
That'll throw your whole 

222
00:10:23,640 --> 00:10:25,560
analysis off. 
We've done a lot of heavy 

223
00:10:25,560 --> 00:10:28,400
lifting in this first part, laid
that foundation with contract 

224
00:10:28,400 --> 00:10:31,880
formation, dug into those tricky
defenses that can invalidate an 

225
00:10:31,880 --> 00:10:34,560
agreement, and highlighted that 
crucial distinction between 

226
00:10:34,560 --> 00:10:38,120
common law and UCC contracts. 
Yeah, good stuff. 

227
00:10:38,400 --> 00:10:40,200
So, ready to move on to Lecture 
2? 

228
00:10:40,280 --> 00:10:42,880
We'll dive into the drama of 
performance and breach what 

229
00:10:42,880 --> 00:10:45,480
happens when those perfectly 
crafted contracts start to fall 

230
00:10:45,480 --> 00:10:46,880
apart. 
Let's do it. 

231
00:10:47,160 --> 00:10:48,840
Bring on the legal battles. 
All right? 

232
00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:52,080
So let's say we've got that 
valid contract in place, signed,

233
00:10:52,080 --> 00:10:55,280
sealed, all that good stuff. 
Time to talk about what happens 

234
00:10:55,280 --> 00:10:58,000
when it's time to actually 
fulfill those promises. 

235
00:10:58,560 --> 00:11:01,080
We're talking performance. 
Right, that's lecture 2 

236
00:11:01,200 --> 00:11:04,520
performance and of course the 
dreaded breach where those nice 

237
00:11:04,520 --> 00:11:08,040
and neat contract principles we 
talked about meet the messiness 

238
00:11:08,280 --> 00:11:10,480
of real life deals. 
Exactly. 

239
00:11:10,480 --> 00:11:12,280
And that's where things get 
interesting. 

240
00:11:12,280 --> 00:11:15,080
And let's be honest, it's where 
a lot of those tricky exam 

241
00:11:15,080 --> 00:11:19,280
questions come from. 
First things first though, what 

242
00:11:19,280 --> 00:11:21,840
do we even mean by performance? 
Yeah, good. 

243
00:11:22,040 --> 00:11:25,120
Point Basically, it's each party
doing what they said they do 

244
00:11:25,120 --> 00:11:27,640
under the contract. 
Pretty straightforward, right? 

245
00:11:27,840 --> 00:11:30,760
Seems simple enough, but I have 
a feeling there's some nuance 

246
00:11:30,760 --> 00:11:33,320
hiding in there somewhere. 
You know it, the level of 

247
00:11:33,320 --> 00:11:36,040
performance that's required, 
it's not always black and white,

248
00:11:36,240 --> 00:11:38,840
depends on the type of contract 
and you guessed it, whether 

249
00:11:38,840 --> 00:11:40,880
we're dealing with common law or
the UCC that. 

250
00:11:41,840 --> 00:11:45,720
Crucial distinction again. 
So how do the performance 

251
00:11:45,720 --> 00:11:47,840
standards differ between those 
two worlds? 

252
00:11:47,960 --> 00:11:50,760
Well, at common law we're 
talking substantial performance.

253
00:11:51,040 --> 00:11:54,080
Doesn't have to be perfect, but 
the party has to have basically 

254
00:11:54,080 --> 00:11:55,960
fulfilled the main purpose of 
the contract. 

255
00:11:56,440 --> 00:11:59,360
Minor deviations, those might be
OK as long as it's not a 

256
00:11:59,360 --> 00:12:01,680
material breach. 
Material breach? 

257
00:12:01,680 --> 00:12:04,480
That sounds serious, Like it's 
not just a small oopsie, right? 

258
00:12:04,680 --> 00:12:08,640
What makes a breach material? 
A material breach, That's when 

259
00:12:08,640 --> 00:12:10,280
it goes to the core of the 
contract. 

260
00:12:10,400 --> 00:12:14,080
Like it undermines the whole 
thing so bad it defeats the 

261
00:12:14,080 --> 00:12:16,560
entire purpose of having the 
contract in the 1st place. 

262
00:12:16,760 --> 00:12:18,360
Remember that example from the 
lecture? 

263
00:12:18,720 --> 00:12:21,840
The caterer who was supposed to 
provide this fancy dinner but 

264
00:12:21,840 --> 00:12:24,600
showed up with just sandwiches. 
Yeah, that's a party fell. 

265
00:12:24,920 --> 00:12:28,680
Imagine showing up in your gown 
town tuxedo expecting a gourmet 

266
00:12:28,680 --> 00:12:31,480
meal and there's like trays of 
sandwiches. 

267
00:12:31,480 --> 00:12:33,960
Exactly, classic example of a 
material breach. 

268
00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:36,640
They didn't deliver what was a 
core part of the deal. 

269
00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:40,680
So under common law, if there's 
a material breach, what happens?

270
00:12:40,720 --> 00:12:43,080
Does the non breaching party 
just get to walk away? 

271
00:12:43,280 --> 00:12:45,760
Essentially, yes. 
They're off the hook for their 

272
00:12:45,760 --> 00:12:49,040
own performance obligations and 
they can sue for damages caused 

273
00:12:49,040 --> 00:12:51,360
by that breach. 
It's like a get out of jail free

274
00:12:51,360 --> 00:12:53,640
card. 
Seems fair, you shouldn't be 

275
00:12:53,640 --> 00:12:56,000
stuck in a contract the other 
party totally blew up. 

276
00:12:56,440 --> 00:12:58,240
What about those less serious 
cases though? 

277
00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:00,720
The minor breaches? 
What happens then? 

278
00:13:01,040 --> 00:13:04,600
With a minor breach, the non 
breaching party still has to do 

279
00:13:04,600 --> 00:13:08,360
their part, but they can sue for
damages to compensate for that 

280
00:13:08,360 --> 00:13:11,280
imperfect performance. 
Imagine a construction contract.

281
00:13:11,520 --> 00:13:14,800
The builder finishes the house, 
but they use the wrong type of 

282
00:13:14,800 --> 00:13:17,360
doorknobs. 
OK so the house is livable but 

283
00:13:17,360 --> 00:13:19,080
those doorknobs are killing the 
vibe. 

284
00:13:19,400 --> 00:13:21,160
Not a deal breaker, but still a 
breach. 

285
00:13:21,360 --> 00:13:23,200
Exactly. 
In that case, you'd still pay 

286
00:13:23,200 --> 00:13:26,600
for the house, but you could sue
to get the cost of replacing 

287
00:13:26,600 --> 00:13:28,800
those door knobs. 
Make them whole, you know. 

288
00:13:28,920 --> 00:13:32,720
Gotcha, so common law it's all 
about substantial performance 

289
00:13:32,800 --> 00:13:35,360
and figuring out whether a 
breach is material or minor. 

290
00:13:35,840 --> 00:13:39,120
What about the UCC though? 
How did those performance 

291
00:13:39,120 --> 00:13:42,240
standards work in the world of 
buying and selling stuff? 

292
00:13:42,440 --> 00:13:45,560
UCC, they're a bit more strict. 
They have the perfect tender 

293
00:13:45,560 --> 00:13:48,680
rule, means the goods delivered 
have to be exactly as described 

294
00:13:48,680 --> 00:13:51,560
in the contract. 
Any deviation, even a small one,

295
00:13:51,760 --> 00:13:54,400
can give the buyer the right to 
reject the whole shipment. 

296
00:13:54,600 --> 00:14:00,400
Whoa, that sounds pretty harsh. 
So if I order 1000 blue pens and

297
00:14:00,400 --> 00:14:03,440
one shows up red, I can send the
whole box back. 

298
00:14:04,120 --> 00:14:07,640
Technically yes, but 
realistically buyers are often 

299
00:14:07,640 --> 00:14:10,720
more willing to work things out,
especially if the seller offers 

300
00:14:10,720 --> 00:14:13,800
to fix it. 
And the UCC does give sellers a 

301
00:14:13,800 --> 00:14:16,600
chance to cure the problem if 
they can do it within the 

302
00:14:16,600 --> 00:14:17,960
contract time frame. 
OK. 

303
00:14:17,960 --> 00:14:20,960
So it's not always a complete my
way or the highway situation. 

304
00:14:20,960 --> 00:14:23,040
There's some room for, you know,
practicality. 

305
00:14:23,600 --> 00:14:26,560
But that perfect tender rule 
definitely gives buyers some 

306
00:14:26,560 --> 00:14:28,000
power. 
Oh yeah, big time. 

307
00:14:28,320 --> 00:14:30,640
It's there to protect buyers 
from getting shoddy goods. 

308
00:14:30,800 --> 00:14:33,480
But you're right, it's not meant
to be a way to exploit little 

309
00:14:33,480 --> 00:14:35,680
tiny issues. 
Courts are going to look at 

310
00:14:35,680 --> 00:14:38,080
whether rejecting the goods is 
reasonable. 

311
00:14:38,120 --> 00:14:40,520
Makes me think of that law 
school hypothetical, the case of

312
00:14:40,520 --> 00:14:43,480
the hairy hand. 
Guy orders a custom made glove 

313
00:14:43,720 --> 00:14:45,600
but when it arrives it's a bit 
off. 

314
00:14:46,160 --> 00:14:48,520
Claims it's because he has 
unusually hairy hands. 

315
00:14:48,520 --> 00:14:50,840
Oh yeah, that one. 
Classic example of trying to use

316
00:14:50,840 --> 00:14:52,760
that perfect tender rule to your
advantage. 

317
00:14:52,920 --> 00:14:56,200
OK, so we've got our performance
standards, substantial 

318
00:14:56,200 --> 00:14:59,200
performance for common law, 
perfect tender for the UCC. 

319
00:14:59,680 --> 00:15:02,840
The lecture also mentions this 
thing called anticipatory 

320
00:15:02,840 --> 00:15:05,120
repudiation. 
What's that all about? 

321
00:15:05,920 --> 00:15:09,400
South anticipatory repudiation. 
That's when one party clearly 

322
00:15:09,400 --> 00:15:12,240
says before they even have to 
perform that they're not going 

323
00:15:12,240 --> 00:15:13,440
to fulfill their end of the 
deal. 

324
00:15:13,440 --> 00:15:16,120
It's like saying, hey, I know 
I'm supposed to deliver these 

325
00:15:16,120 --> 00:15:18,920
widgets next month, but heads up
it's not happening. 

326
00:15:19,200 --> 00:15:21,720
So it's like breaking up with 
the contract before the contract

327
00:15:21,720 --> 00:15:22,960
even has a chance to break up 
with. 

328
00:15:22,960 --> 00:15:26,400
You exactly, and it matters 
because it gives the non 

329
00:15:26,400 --> 00:15:29,320
breaching party some choices. 
They can say OK you're in breach

330
00:15:29,320 --> 00:15:32,640
and sue right away, or they can 
wait see if the other party 

331
00:15:32,640 --> 00:15:34,280
changes their mind and actually 
perform. 

332
00:15:34,560 --> 00:15:36,880
Makes sense, wouldn't want to be
left hanging wondering what's 

333
00:15:36,880 --> 00:15:39,480
going to happen. 
So let's say we do have a breach

334
00:15:39,560 --> 00:15:41,800
material, minor, anticipatory 
whatever. 

335
00:15:42,080 --> 00:15:44,520
What happens next? 
What can the non breaching party

336
00:15:44,520 --> 00:15:48,120
actually do to get some justice?
That's where remedies come in. 

337
00:15:48,840 --> 00:15:51,280
Contract law gives us a whole 
bunch of options to make the 

338
00:15:51,280 --> 00:15:54,760
injured party whole, and 
sometimes even force the 

339
00:15:54,760 --> 00:15:56,680
breaching party to actually 
follow through. 

340
00:15:56,840 --> 00:15:58,920
OK, let's open up that toolbox 
of remedies. 

341
00:15:59,280 --> 00:16:02,680
What are the main options for 
someone who's been wronged by a 

342
00:16:02,680 --> 00:16:05,000
breach? 
The most common one is money 

343
00:16:05,000 --> 00:16:07,960
damages. 
The idea is to compensate the 

344
00:16:07,960 --> 00:16:11,680
non breaching party for their 
losses and there are different 

345
00:16:11,680 --> 00:16:15,560
types of money damages, each one
aimed a specific part of the 

346
00:16:15,560 --> 00:16:17,280
harm. 
So it's not just A1 size fits 

347
00:16:17,280 --> 00:16:19,400
all situation. 
There's like different flavors 

348
00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:20,760
of money damages. 
Exactly. 

349
00:16:20,760 --> 00:16:23,040
The big one is expectation 
damages. 

350
00:16:23,520 --> 00:16:26,600
The goal here is to put the non 
breaching party in the same 

351
00:16:26,600 --> 00:16:28,880
position they would have been in
if the contract had gone 

352
00:16:28,880 --> 00:16:31,240
perfectly, getting the benefit 
of the bargain. 

353
00:16:31,560 --> 00:16:34,280
So let's say I hire a contractor
to remodel my kitchen for 

354
00:16:34,280 --> 00:16:37,640
$20,000 and they just walk off 
the job halfway through. 

355
00:16:38,360 --> 00:16:41,360
Expectation damages would cover 
the cost of hiring someone else 

356
00:16:41,360 --> 00:16:42,760
to finish the work. 
Exactly. 

357
00:16:42,760 --> 00:16:44,840
It's about putting you back in 
the position you should have 

358
00:16:44,840 --> 00:16:46,720
been in had they done what they 
promised. 

359
00:16:47,040 --> 00:16:50,080
You get the kitchen you bargain 
for, even if it costs you extra.

360
00:16:50,280 --> 00:16:53,760
It's about making you whole, not
necessarily about punishing the 

361
00:16:53,760 --> 00:16:56,360
breaching party. 
What other types of money 

362
00:16:56,360 --> 00:16:59,040
damages are there? 
We have consequential damages. 

363
00:16:59,120 --> 00:17:02,760
These are a bit more indirect. 
They cover foreseeable losses 

364
00:17:02,760 --> 00:17:04,319
that happen because of the 
breach. 

365
00:17:04,599 --> 00:17:07,240
Like imagine I contract with a 
supplier for parts that are 

366
00:17:07,240 --> 00:17:10,359
super important for my business.
They're late and I lose a major 

367
00:17:10,359 --> 00:17:12,839
client, lose a bunch of profit. 
Oof, that hurts. 

368
00:17:13,480 --> 00:17:16,000
It's not just about the cost of 
the parts, it's about the ripple

369
00:17:16,000 --> 00:17:18,520
effect on your whole business. 
Exactly. 

370
00:17:18,920 --> 00:17:21,760
And if the supplier knew or 
should have known that those 

371
00:17:21,760 --> 00:17:24,839
parts were crucial, they could 
be on the hook for those lost 

372
00:17:24,839 --> 00:17:27,560
profits as consequential 
damages, holding them 

373
00:17:27,560 --> 00:17:29,760
accountable for the foreseeable 
consequences. 

374
00:17:29,760 --> 00:17:32,000
OK. 
So consequential damages are 

375
00:17:32,000 --> 00:17:35,680
about those indirect but 
foreseeable losses that flow 

376
00:17:35,680 --> 00:17:38,080
from the breach. 
What else do we need to? 

377
00:17:38,080 --> 00:17:40,040
Know we also have reliance 
damages. 

378
00:17:40,280 --> 00:17:42,920
Those aim to put the non 
breaching party back in the 

379
00:17:42,920 --> 00:17:45,760
position they were in before the
contract even happened. 

380
00:17:45,760 --> 00:17:49,280
Like hitting rewind, 
compensating them for expenses 

381
00:17:49,280 --> 00:17:52,600
they made based on the contract.
So if I spend a bunch of money 

382
00:17:52,600 --> 00:17:55,640
on advertising for a concert, 
and then the concert gets 

383
00:17:55,640 --> 00:17:58,440
canceled because the other party
breaches, I could try to get 

384
00:17:58,440 --> 00:18:01,240
those costs back through 
reliance damages. 

385
00:18:01,320 --> 00:18:03,520
Precisely. 
You wouldn't get the profit you 

386
00:18:03,520 --> 00:18:06,320
expected from the concert, but 
you'd at least be covered for 

387
00:18:06,320 --> 00:18:08,480
the money you spent based on the
contract. 

388
00:18:08,760 --> 00:18:12,000
It's about undoing the harm. 
It's like a buffet of money 

389
00:18:12,000 --> 00:18:14,240
damages. 
The non breaching party can 

390
00:18:14,240 --> 00:18:16,520
choose what works best for them.
Exactly. 

391
00:18:16,520 --> 00:18:19,000
And that's a good point to 
remember when you're tackling 

392
00:18:19,000 --> 00:18:21,840
those exam questions, think 
strategically. 

393
00:18:22,400 --> 00:18:24,880
Which type of damages would be 
the best fit? 

394
00:18:25,120 --> 00:18:27,040
What would you need to prove to 
get those? 

395
00:18:27,040 --> 00:18:30,680
Damages, making me think about 
both legal strategy and actual 

396
00:18:30,680 --> 00:18:33,200
buffets now. 
But you mentioned earlier that 

397
00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:34,920
money damages aren't the only 
option. 

398
00:18:35,280 --> 00:18:38,560
What other tools do courts have 
to fix those contractual wrongs?

399
00:18:38,720 --> 00:18:40,520
Sometimes money just isn't 
enough. 

400
00:18:40,680 --> 00:18:42,280
That's where equitable remedies 
come in. 

401
00:18:42,960 --> 00:18:46,320
These are court orders, actions 
that go beyond just paying cash.

402
00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:49,880
Equitable remedies, huh? 
Sounds a little more hands on. 

403
00:18:50,160 --> 00:18:53,120
They can be. 
The two big ones are specific 

404
00:18:53,120 --> 00:18:56,880
performance and injunctions. 
Specific performance is where 

405
00:18:56,880 --> 00:19:00,520
the court says, hey, breaching 
party, you got to do what you 

406
00:19:00,520 --> 00:19:03,480
promised in the contract. 
Whoa, so they can actually force

407
00:19:03,480 --> 00:19:06,040
the breaching party to perform? 
When would they do that? 

408
00:19:06,240 --> 00:19:10,000
Usually it's for things that are
unique, one-of-a-kind, a rare 

409
00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:12,080
painting, a specific piece of 
land. 

410
00:19:12,640 --> 00:19:14,280
Money wouldn't really make up 
for the loss. 

411
00:19:14,280 --> 00:19:18,760
So if I agree to buy a vintage 
guitar signed by like Jimi 

412
00:19:18,760 --> 00:19:22,320
Hendrix and the seller backs 
out, I could ask the court to 

413
00:19:22,320 --> 00:19:24,040
force them to hand over that 
guitar? 

414
00:19:24,040 --> 00:19:26,720
You could definitely try, it's 
not a sure thing. 

415
00:19:26,720 --> 00:19:30,160
Courts aren't super keen on 
forcing people to do stuff, but 

416
00:19:30,160 --> 00:19:33,360
if that guitar is truly unique, 
specific performance might be an

417
00:19:33,360 --> 00:19:35,200
option. 
It's like saying, Nope, you made

418
00:19:35,200 --> 00:19:38,120
a promise, you got to keep it. 
What about those injunctions you

419
00:19:38,120 --> 00:19:39,160
mentioned? 
How do they work? 

420
00:19:39,440 --> 00:19:42,000
An injunction is a court order 
saying don't do this. 

421
00:19:42,560 --> 00:19:45,040
It's often used for things like 
non compete agreements. 

422
00:19:45,200 --> 00:19:48,840
Say a company has a non compete 
with a former employee and that 

423
00:19:48,840 --> 00:19:50,840
employee goes and works for a 
competitor. 

424
00:19:51,160 --> 00:19:53,640
The company could ask for an 
injunction to stop them from 

425
00:19:53,640 --> 00:19:54,760
working there. 
OK. 

426
00:19:54,760 --> 00:19:57,600
So it's like a stop right there 
from court preventing further 

427
00:19:57,600 --> 00:19:59,200
harm or breach. 
You got it. 

428
00:19:59,400 --> 00:20:02,480
Another tool to make sure those 
contracts are enforced and 

429
00:20:02,480 --> 00:20:05,640
people are held accountable. 
We have covered so much ground 

430
00:20:05,640 --> 00:20:08,520
just now. 
Performance breach, different 

431
00:20:08,520 --> 00:20:12,480
types of breaches, anticipatory 
repudiation, money damages, 

432
00:20:12,800 --> 00:20:15,160
equitable remedies. 
It's a lot. 

433
00:20:15,160 --> 00:20:17,200
It is it. 
Is any advice for how to keep it

434
00:20:17,200 --> 00:20:19,080
all straight? 
Be systematic. 

435
00:20:19,440 --> 00:20:22,800
First figure out common law or 
UCC. 

436
00:20:23,960 --> 00:20:26,680
Then what were the performance 
obligations? 

437
00:20:26,720 --> 00:20:29,280
Was there a breach? 
And if there was, what kind of 

438
00:20:29,280 --> 00:20:30,800
breach was it? 
What are the remedies? 

439
00:20:30,880 --> 00:20:32,840
It's like solving a puzzle. 
Exactly. 

440
00:20:32,840 --> 00:20:35,680
And remember, contract law is 
all about applying these 

441
00:20:35,680 --> 00:20:38,000
principles to the specific facts
of each case. 

442
00:20:38,280 --> 00:20:40,240
The more you practice, the 
better you'll get. 

443
00:20:40,240 --> 00:20:41,960
The more you do it, the easier 
it gets. 

444
00:20:42,040 --> 00:20:45,160
Practice makes perfect, or at 
least gets us closer to that A 

445
00:20:45,160 --> 00:20:47,680
on the exam. 
So ready to move on to Lecture 

446
00:20:47,680 --> 00:20:48,640
3. 
Hit me with it. 

447
00:20:48,880 --> 00:20:51,440
This time we're talking about 
situations where it's not just 

448
00:20:51,440 --> 00:20:53,480
about the original two parties 
to the contract. 

449
00:20:53,640 --> 00:20:55,280
Time to bring in those third 
parties, all right. 

450
00:20:55,400 --> 00:20:56,440
Let's do it. 
OK. 

451
00:20:56,440 --> 00:20:58,720
So we've talked about how 
contracts are formed. 

452
00:20:58,720 --> 00:21:01,720
We've dug into those defenses 
that can, you know, make a 

453
00:21:01,720 --> 00:21:04,720
contract invalid. 
We even tackled performance and 

454
00:21:04,720 --> 00:21:07,640
breach. 
But contract law always has a 

455
00:21:07,640 --> 00:21:09,200
way of throwing a curveball, 
right? 

456
00:21:09,360 --> 00:21:13,200
Oh yeah, always. 
Lecture 3 introduces us to this 

457
00:21:13,200 --> 00:21:15,200
whole idea of third party 
rights. 

458
00:21:15,680 --> 00:21:18,560
We're going beyond those initial
two parties, those who signed 

459
00:21:18,560 --> 00:21:21,640
the contract, and looking at 
situations where someone else 

460
00:21:21,640 --> 00:21:24,040
might have a legal interest in 
what's going on. 

461
00:21:24,160 --> 00:21:26,240
It's like finding out there's 
another player in the game, 

462
00:21:26,560 --> 00:21:29,440
someone who was wasn't at the 
negotiating table but still has 

463
00:21:29,440 --> 00:21:32,560
some power to influence things. 
Exactly, and this stuff, it's 

464
00:21:32,560 --> 00:21:35,600
crucial for anyone who deals 
with contracts, drafting them, 

465
00:21:35,600 --> 00:21:38,680
advising clients and of course 
for those exam questions. 

466
00:21:39,160 --> 00:21:43,360
The lecture focuses on 2 main 
areas, third party beneficiaries

467
00:21:43,360 --> 00:21:46,200
and then assigning or delegating
rights and duties under the 

468
00:21:46,200 --> 00:21:47,960
contract. 
OK, let's break those down 

469
00:21:47,960 --> 00:21:50,000
first. 
Third party beneficiaries, who 

470
00:21:50,000 --> 00:21:53,080
are they and what gives them the
right to, you know, get involved

471
00:21:53,080 --> 00:21:56,440
in someone else's contract? 
So a third party beneficiary, 

472
00:21:56,840 --> 00:21:59,600
it's someone who wasn't part of 
the original agreement, but they

473
00:21:59,600 --> 00:22:02,520
stand to benefit from it and 
sometimes they can actually 

474
00:22:02,520 --> 00:22:04,600
enforce the contract if things 
go South. 

475
00:22:04,840 --> 00:22:08,600
So like if I promised to buy you
lunch and your friend ends up 

476
00:22:08,600 --> 00:22:11,320
getting a bike too, does that 
make your friend a third party 

477
00:22:11,320 --> 00:22:13,480
beneficiary? 
Not quite. 

478
00:22:13,800 --> 00:22:17,680
The key here is the difference 
between an intended beneficiary 

479
00:22:17,680 --> 00:22:21,520
and an incidental beneficiary. 
An intended beneficiary is 

480
00:22:21,520 --> 00:22:23,720
someone the party's actually 
meant to benefit. 

481
00:22:24,240 --> 00:22:26,400
Like, think of a life insurance 
policy. 

482
00:22:26,720 --> 00:22:29,320
The person names a beneficiary 
to get the money when they die. 

483
00:22:29,600 --> 00:22:32,720
That beneficiary has a right to 
enforce the policy. 

484
00:22:32,840 --> 00:22:35,520
OK, so there's that deliberate 
intention to benefit this third 

485
00:22:35,520 --> 00:22:37,520
person. 
They're not just a random person

486
00:22:37,520 --> 00:22:40,440
who happens to gain something. 
What about those incidental 

487
00:22:40,440 --> 00:22:43,400
beneficiaries then? 
An incidental beneficiary might 

488
00:22:43,400 --> 00:22:46,120
get something out of the 
contract indirectly, but that's 

489
00:22:46,120 --> 00:22:48,360
not the main purpose of the 
agreement and they don't have 

490
00:22:48,360 --> 00:22:51,680
any enforceable rights. 
So in your lunch example, your 

491
00:22:51,680 --> 00:22:54,560
friend getting a bite, that's 
nice, but the contract wasn't 

492
00:22:54,560 --> 00:22:56,080
made to benefit them. 
Got it. 

493
00:22:56,400 --> 00:22:59,160
It's about intent. 
Did the parties want to create a

494
00:22:59,160 --> 00:23:02,160
legal obligation that would 
directly benefit that third 

495
00:23:02,160 --> 00:23:04,480
person? 
If not, they're just incidental 

496
00:23:04,480 --> 00:23:07,040
along for the ride but no legal 
power. 

497
00:23:07,240 --> 00:23:10,880
Exactly that distinction. 
It's super important, especially

498
00:23:10,880 --> 00:23:13,640
for exams. 
Professors love to test whether 

499
00:23:13,640 --> 00:23:15,640
you can spot who has rights and 
who doesn't. 

500
00:23:15,720 --> 00:23:17,080
All right. 
So we've got intended 

501
00:23:17,080 --> 00:23:20,600
beneficiaries who have real 
legal rights and incidental 

502
00:23:20,600 --> 00:23:23,800
beneficiaries who are kind of 
just lucky bystanders. 

503
00:23:24,240 --> 00:23:27,640
Now, what about those situations
where the original parties want 

504
00:23:27,640 --> 00:23:31,720
to bring someone else into the 
mix, like transferring contract 

505
00:23:31,720 --> 00:23:33,560
rights? 
Yeah, that's where assignment 

506
00:23:33,560 --> 00:23:36,040
and delegation come in. 
Assignment is transferring a 

507
00:23:36,040 --> 00:23:39,120
right under the contract and 
delegation is transferring a 

508
00:23:39,120 --> 00:23:42,520
duty or an obligation. 
OK, so if I have a contract with

509
00:23:42,520 --> 00:23:47,200
a publisher to write a book and 
they owe me a $10,000 advance, I

510
00:23:47,200 --> 00:23:49,680
could assign that right to 
receive that money to someone 

511
00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:51,440
else, like a creditor I owe 
money to? 

512
00:23:51,440 --> 00:23:54,160
Exactly. 
That creditor would then have 

513
00:23:54,160 --> 00:23:56,440
the right to collect that money 
from the publisher. 

514
00:23:56,560 --> 00:24:00,120
You're basically handing off the
I get to receive this part of 

515
00:24:00,120 --> 00:24:01,120
the contract. 
Makes sense. 

516
00:24:01,120 --> 00:24:02,840
What about delegation? 
How does that work? 

517
00:24:03,080 --> 00:24:06,240
Delegation is more about passing
off the responsibility to 

518
00:24:06,240 --> 00:24:08,120
actually do something under the 
contract. 

519
00:24:08,560 --> 00:24:11,800
Say you hire a painter to paint 
your house, but you decide to 

520
00:24:11,800 --> 00:24:13,520
delegate that duty to your 
neighbor. 

521
00:24:13,680 --> 00:24:17,680
So my neighbor does the work and
I'm off the hook. 

522
00:24:18,160 --> 00:24:20,720
Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
Well, not always. 

523
00:24:20,720 --> 00:24:24,160
You can delegate the duty, but 
you might still be liable if the

524
00:24:24,160 --> 00:24:27,640
person you delegate to your 
neighbor in this case doesn't do

525
00:24:27,640 --> 00:24:30,160
the job right. 
So there's a difference between 

526
00:24:30,160 --> 00:24:33,480
delegating the task and actually
getting rid of the liability. 

527
00:24:33,520 --> 00:24:35,240
That's an important point. 
It is. 

528
00:24:35,240 --> 00:24:38,240
It trips a lot of people up. 
Delegation doesn't automatically

529
00:24:38,240 --> 00:24:41,120
mean the original party is free 
and clear unless there's an 

530
00:24:41,120 --> 00:24:45,200
agreement saying so. 
So assignment the new party 

531
00:24:45,280 --> 00:24:47,880
steps in and can enforce that, 
right? 

532
00:24:48,160 --> 00:24:51,000
But with delegation, the 
original party might still be on

533
00:24:51,000 --> 00:24:52,720
the hook if the delegate messes 
up. 

534
00:24:52,800 --> 00:24:54,480
Yeah, it's like they're still 
holding a safety net. 

535
00:24:54,960 --> 00:24:57,560
OK, this whole third party 
rights thing, it's kind of a 

536
00:24:57,560 --> 00:24:59,760
brain twister. 
Any tips for how to make sense 

537
00:24:59,760 --> 00:25:01,800
of it all? 
Like a lot of contract law, it 

538
00:25:01,800 --> 00:25:04,960
comes down to intent. 
Did the original parties want to

539
00:25:04,960 --> 00:25:08,520
directly benefit a third party? 
Was that right or duty 

540
00:25:08,520 --> 00:25:11,160
transferable? 
Figure those things out and 

541
00:25:11,160 --> 00:25:13,640
it'll help you sort through 
those tricky situations. 

542
00:25:13,720 --> 00:25:16,400
Good advice. 
All right, before we wrap up 

543
00:25:16,400 --> 00:25:20,080
this deep dive, the lecture goes
back to that distinction between

544
00:25:20,080 --> 00:25:21,720
the UCC and common law 
contracts. 

545
00:25:21,920 --> 00:25:24,800
We've talked about it a bunch, 
but it's clearly a big deal. 

546
00:25:25,040 --> 00:25:27,680
It is knowing whether you're 
dealing with goods or services 

547
00:25:27,680 --> 00:25:30,120
that's crucial because it 
determines which set of rules 

548
00:25:30,120 --> 00:25:32,800
you use. 
And those rules, as we've seen, 

549
00:25:32,840 --> 00:25:35,720
can be pretty different. 
It's not just theoretical, it 

550
00:25:35,720 --> 00:25:39,040
has real consequences for how a 
contract is understood and 

551
00:25:39,040 --> 00:25:41,200
enforced. 
What are some of the biggest 

552
00:25:41,200 --> 00:25:42,560
differences we should keep in 
mind? 

553
00:25:42,800 --> 00:25:45,480
One big one is contract 
modifications. 

554
00:25:45,600 --> 00:25:48,880
At common law, you usually need 
new consideration to change an 

555
00:25:48,880 --> 00:25:52,760
existing contract, but under the
UCC modifications made in good 

556
00:25:52,760 --> 00:25:56,240
faith, those are often OK even 
without new consideration. 

557
00:25:56,240 --> 00:25:59,640
So like if I'm buying a car from
a dealership and we decide to 

558
00:25:59,640 --> 00:26:02,480
add a sunroof, we don't 
necessarily need to change the 

559
00:26:02,480 --> 00:26:04,080
price for that to be part of the
deal? 

560
00:26:04,280 --> 00:26:06,320
Exactly. 
If it's not in good faith, the 

561
00:26:06,360 --> 00:26:08,760
UCC doesn't need that extra 
consideration. 

562
00:26:09,000 --> 00:26:11,640
It's about being more flexible, 
flexible, efficient in business 

563
00:26:11,640 --> 00:26:12,800
deals. 
Interesting. 

564
00:26:13,120 --> 00:26:16,640
The UCC seems a bit more, I 
don't know, relaxed maybe? 

565
00:26:16,680 --> 00:26:18,360
Yeah. 
Compared to common law, what 

566
00:26:18,360 --> 00:26:20,960
other key differences are there?
Firm offers. 

567
00:26:21,120 --> 00:26:23,720
At common law, an offer can 
usually be revoked until it's 

568
00:26:23,720 --> 00:26:26,480
accepted. 
But under the UCC, a merchant 

569
00:26:26,480 --> 00:26:29,200
can make a firm offer, an offer 
that can't be revoked for a 

570
00:26:29,200 --> 00:26:31,400
certain time. 
And they can do that in writing,

571
00:26:31,480 --> 00:26:35,400
no extra consideration needed. 
So the UCC gives merchants a way

572
00:26:35,400 --> 00:26:38,680
to create more certainty even 
before a contract is final. 

573
00:26:38,960 --> 00:26:41,760
What about warranties, Those 
implied warranties that come 

574
00:26:41,760 --> 00:26:44,360
with goods? 
Does common law have anything 

575
00:26:44,360 --> 00:26:45,720
like that? 
That's another area where 

576
00:26:45,720 --> 00:26:48,520
they're different. 
The UCC has specific rules about

577
00:26:48,520 --> 00:26:51,640
warranties, like the implied 
warranty of merchantability. 

578
00:26:51,960 --> 00:26:54,280
Basically it says that goods 
should be fit for their normal 

579
00:26:54,280 --> 00:26:56,240
purpose. 
So if I buy a toaster, it should

580
00:26:56,240 --> 00:26:59,160
actually toast bread, and if it 
doesn't I've got some legal 

581
00:26:59,160 --> 00:27:00,640
options. 
Yep, exactly. 

582
00:27:00,840 --> 00:27:03,600
The UCC gives buyers some basic 
protections. 

583
00:27:03,600 --> 00:27:05,920
Make sure goods meet reasonable 
expectations. 

584
00:27:06,120 --> 00:27:08,880
Common law doesn't have those 
specific warranty rules. 

585
00:27:09,080 --> 00:27:10,560
Wow. 
We've covered a a lot of 

586
00:27:10,560 --> 00:27:14,440
contract law in this deep dive 
from the basics all the way to 

587
00:27:14,440 --> 00:27:18,960
those third party situations and
the UCC versus common law stuff.

588
00:27:19,480 --> 00:27:21,520
It's been a lot but super 
helpful. 

589
00:27:21,560 --> 00:27:24,040
It has, and we've just scratched
the surface. 

590
00:27:24,040 --> 00:27:28,160
Contract law is a huge area with
tons of little details. 

591
00:27:28,400 --> 00:27:30,760
Any parting words of wisdom for 
our listeners? 

592
00:27:31,040 --> 00:27:33,720
All those law students getting 
ready for their contract law 

593
00:27:33,720 --> 00:27:36,280
exams. 
Practice, practice, practice. 

594
00:27:36,720 --> 00:27:39,240
Do those hypotheticals. 
Read those cases. 

595
00:27:39,360 --> 00:27:41,640
Talk about it in class. 
The more you work with it, the 

596
00:27:41,640 --> 00:27:44,400
more confident we'll get. 
And don't forget about those UCC

597
00:27:44,400 --> 00:27:48,400
versus common law differences. 
Figuring out which rules to use.

598
00:27:48,520 --> 00:27:50,200
That's half the battle. 
Totally. 

599
00:27:50,440 --> 00:27:53,200
Remember contract law. 
It's all about applying these 

600
00:27:53,200 --> 00:27:56,720
ideas to real life situations. 
Analyze those fact patterns, 

601
00:27:56,720 --> 00:27:59,920
figure out the legal issues, and
use what you know to build those

602
00:27:59,920 --> 00:28:01,320
arguments. 
Great advice. 

603
00:28:01,760 --> 00:28:03,960
Well, I think it's time to wrap 
up this deep dive into the world

604
00:28:03,960 --> 00:28:06,720
of contract law. 
We've hit the major points, 

605
00:28:07,040 --> 00:28:09,680
talked about those tricky 
details, and hopefully given you

606
00:28:09,680 --> 00:28:12,520
the tools you need to do well 
both in class and out in the 

607
00:28:12,520 --> 00:28:14,080
real world. 
Absolutely. 

608
00:28:14,080 --> 00:28:16,560
Contract law is everywhere, you 
know, it affects our everyday 

609
00:28:16,560 --> 00:28:19,480
lives, it shapes business deals.
It's the foundation for so many 

610
00:28:19,480 --> 00:28:22,480
legal relationships. 
So mastering these concepts, 

611
00:28:22,480 --> 00:28:25,000
it's not just about exams, it's 
about understanding how the 

612
00:28:25,000 --> 00:28:26,720
legal system works. 
So true. 

613
00:28:27,080 --> 00:28:30,000
Keep studying, stay curious and 
keep exploring this amazing 

614
00:28:30,000 --> 00:28:33,640
world of contract law. 
Until next time, happy studying 

615
00:28:33,640 --> 00:28:34,080
everyone.