Promises, Promises

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman debate the meaning of chicken in the 1960 case of Frigaliment Importing vs. BNS.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman discuss the pre-existing duty rule and economic duress in the 1902 case of Alaska Packers vs Domenico.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman discuss a student's claim for rescission on a contract for thousands of hours of dance lessons in the 1968 case Vokes vs. Arthur Murray Dance Studios.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman discuss the Delaware Chancery Court's specific performance analysis in the 2001 case of In re IBP Shareholders Litigation.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman discuss the 2017 unilateral mistake case (with bitcoin!) from the Singapore International Commercial Court, B2C2 Ltd. vs. Quoine Pte Ltd.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman discuss the moral consideration argument in Webb vs. McGowin, and in the earlier case of Mills vs. Wyman.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman at the University of Pennsylvania discuss the weaponization of Accord and Satisfaction doctrine in the 1971 small claims case of Con Ed vs. Erroll.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman discuss the offer, the acceptance, and the battle of the forms in Judge Easterbrook's 1997 Hill vs. Gateway decision.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman from the University of Pennsylvania discuss the Wisconsin promissory estoppel decision in Hoffman vs. Red Owl.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman discuss the Peerless interpretation chestnut of Raffles vs. Wichelhaus.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and David Hoffman puzzle over the restitutionary remedy in a 1944 excavation case, U.S. for Susi Contracting vs. Zara Contracting.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman from the University of Pennsylvania Law School discuss an uncle's promise in Hamer vs. Sidway.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and David Hoffman of the University of Pennsylvania Law School discuss illusory promises in De Los Santos vs. Great Western Sugar Co.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman of the University of Pennsylvania Law School discuss expectation damages in Tongish vs. Thomas.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and David Hoffman from the University of Pennsylvania Law School discuss the classic case of Lucy vs. Zehmer.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman discuss Jacob & Youngs vs. Kent.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and David Hoffman of the University of Pennsylvania Law School talk Parol Evidence in Masterson vs. Sine.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and David Hoffman from the University of Pennsylvania discuss the Hawaii macadam dispute in Nanakuli vs. Shell Oil.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and David Hoffman from the University of Pennsylvania Law School discuss the duty to mitigate damages in Parker vs. Twentieth Century Fox.

Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and David Hoffman from the University of Pennsylvania Law School argue about Hanford vs. Connecticut Fair Association.