About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (April 2022 - August 2022)

handle is hein.ali/contract0194 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE CONTRACTS CHAPTER 3. FORMATION OF INFORMAL CONTRACTS TOPIC 2. MANIFESTATION OF ASSENT § 32. Requirement of Certainty in the Terms of an Offer D.D.C.2021. Quot. in case quot. in sup. In consolidated class actions, university students sued universities that suspended in-person classes and temporarily moved them online due to a pandemic, seeking a partial refund of tuition and fees. This court granted universities' motion to dismiss students' claim for breach of contract, holding that the parties appeared to have bargained for a presumption of in- person education, while preserving the right to suspend campus-based instruction if they had a good- faith reason to do so. The court cited Restatement of Contracts § 32, which discussed the requirement of certainty in the terms of an offer, in pointing out that, while students essentially conceded that they did not enter express contracts for in-person education, all parties agreed that universities entered a contract of some kind with students. Crawford v. Presidents and Directors of Georgetown College, 537 F.Supp.3d 8, 18. TOPIC 4. INFORMAL CONTRACTS WITHOUT ASSENT OR CONSIDERATION § 90. Promise Reasonably Inducing Definite and Substantial Action C.A.9, 2021. Quot. in diss. op. After same-sex couples successfully challenged a state ballot proposition that prohibited same-sex marriages, the district court entered video recordings of the trial into the record under seal. Shortly before the seal's presumptive ten-year expiration date, the district court denied a request to extend the seal filed by certain original proponents of the proposition. This court dismissed proponents' appeal for lack of standing, holding that they failed to provide any evidence that they or anyone aligned with them would suffer any injury if the recordings were released. The dissent cited Restatement of Contracts § 90 in arguing that the district-court judge made a binding, enforceable promise not to broadcast the recording publicly, and that the breach of a contract or binding promise was an injury traditionally recognized as a violation of a private right, whether or not the injured party suffered economic or other damage. Perry v. Newsom, 18 F.4th 622, 640. COPYRIGHT C2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most