For our last day of contracts we read Alaska Packers’ Asso. v. Domenico, 117 F. 99 (9th Cir. Cal. 1902).
Professor C couldn’t resist taking a swipe at Palin…
Professor C: “So we have Salmon fishermen here. And this takes place in Alaska, which we know is close to Russia…”
Poor Jack…
Professor C: “Jack, what test does the court use?”
Jack: “Uh… restatement § 261, “Discharge By Supervening Impracticability” it says “Where, after a contract is made….” (starts reading it)
Professor C: (cutting Jack off) Okay, we get it. It’s on the page. So what part of the test isn’t satisfied?”
Jack: “Uh, what test are we talking about?”
Professor C: “JACK! YOU JUST READ THE TEST FOR US!”
(Class laughs)
Jack: “Oh, when I get called on I can’t even think…”
We had an unsavory case in contracts today. Lenawee County Bd. of Health v. Messerly, 417 Mich. 17 (Mich. 1982)
Mr. and Mrs. Pickles purchased an apartment complex and received a nasty surprise:
“Five or six days [after signing the contract], when the Pickleses went to introduce themselves to the tenants, they discovered raw sewage seeping out of the ground.”
Of course the apartment building is condemned by the county, the cost of fixing the defective sewage tank is prohibitive, and the court doesn’t rescind the contract.
Basically, the Pickles were screwed.
And our professor went there:
Professor C: “So we have a couple named the Pickles, and they find themselves in a pickle! Hah! I’ve been waiting ALL SEMESTER to tell that joke…”
Indeed.
In the decision the court mentions then discards the Barren Cow case. Complicated legal analysis? Not really…
Professor C: “The courts problem with the historical analysis is that it DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!”
I just imagine Mrs. Pickles with big Winehouse-beehive hairdo, all excited to meet her new tenants, stepping into the soggy, smelly grass…