Alaska Packers' Association v. Domenico - Case Brief Summary
Alaska Packers' Association v. Domenico - Case Brief Summary
Alaska Packers' Association v. Domenico - Case Brief Summary
modification in the mutual interest of the parties but simply because the other party unless he knuckles under to the threat will incur costs for which he will have no adequate legal remedy. The court discredited the libels because they didnt find it reasonable that the defendant would not provide them with serviceable nets. It was for his own good so there wasnt enough supporting evidence that he would do otherwise because it would hurt his interest. (profit seeking defendant) Exceptions: supported by new consideration on both sides even if very minimal and slight. Unseen foreseen circumstances. It is binding if fair and equitable in view of circumstances not anticipated by the parties when the contract was made: like the mining example and the med school unexpected safety concerns costs. Relliances- on a promised modification Mutual release- mutual recession Disposition Judgment reversed. See Stilk v. Myrick for a contracts case brief in which the court held that a promise to give crewmen a share of the pay of two deserters was invalid for lack of new consideration. 3 sentence IRACWhether when the appellants superintendent at Pyramid Harbor was authorized to make the alleged contract of May 22d, and that he executed it on behalf of the appellant was it supported by a sufficient consideration? The party who refuses to perform , and thereby coerces a promise from the other party to the contract to pay him an increased compensation for doing that which he is legally bound to do, takes an unjustifiable advantage of the necessities of the other party. When a party merely does what he has already obligated himself to do, he cannot demand an additional compensation therefore; and although by taking advantage of the necessities of his adversary, he obtains a promise for more the law will regard it as nudum pactum, and will not lend its process to aid in the wrong.
UCC 2-209(1) Modification needs no consideration to be binding. IRAC- Whether Plaintiff has presented enough evidence to allow a reasonable finder of the facts to conclude the 1989 agreements were executed under duress. Under Michigan law, entering a superseding inconsistent agreement covering the same subject matter rescinds an earlier contract and operates as a waiver of any claim for breach of the earlier contract not expressly reserved. A subsequent contract or modification is invalid and therefore does not supersede an earlier contract when the subsequent contract was entered into under duress. New rule- a contract is voidable if a partys manifestation of assent is induced by an improper threat by another party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative. (Restatement 2 of k, 175 (1) economic duress can exist in the absence of an illegal threat.
Issue. Can a requirements contract for the sale of goods that prohibits oral modifications be validly modified by an oral agreement? Held. Yes. The Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with respect to claims that the Defendant breached contract. The Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. This Court found that while the SOF bars oral agreements that materially modify a written contract, oral changes that do not materially alter the contract are not barred. This Court also found that where an oral modification would be binding in the absence of the SOF, the oral modification is binding when specific goods have been received and accepted.
Discussion. The court first examined the Texas SOF and its exceptions and reasoned that the SOF does not bar oral modifications that do not materially change the terms of a written agreement. The court also looked to the fact that the Defendant promised to reduce the oral modification to writing by noting it on the original contract. This notation constituted a valid writing under the SOF; thus, the SOF was satisfied. Also, as the Plaintiff relied upon the Defendants promise to make this writing, the oral modification was also valid by estoppel. The court also looked to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which codifies the duty of good faith and fair dealings in commercial transactions and requires merchants to observe reasonable commercial stan