May 25, 2012
Lucy van Pelt Ponders Fundamental Contractual Issues
Since Meredith has decided to take an unpaid leave-of-absence this summer, we have to take some short-cuts to make sure we can continue to feed our readers' voracious hunger for new contracts-related stimuli.
Here, for example, is a YouTube clip that bears the caption "All I need to know about contracts"
The comments following the video suggest that 1) Charlie Brown's cause of action would lie in promissory estoppel, not in contract; or 2) that the contract is binding if signed by both parties even in the absence of notarization.
As Charlie Brown might say to express exasperation in this context, *Sigh*. Isn't this obviously a case of tort rather than breach of contract? What contractual damages has Charlie suffered? What non-tort damages would he have based on a theory of promissory estoppel?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lucy van Pelt Ponders Fundamental Contractual Issues:
We can't answer the questions you pose because we don't know what's in the contract. The focus of the chip is not the breach or recourse for a violated contract; the focus is on what makes contract valid. That's Lucy's "out;" the contract wasn't notarized. But I don't know of any legal theory that posits that a contract must be notarized to be valid.
Posted by: Daniel | May 26, 2012 3:37:25 PM