ContractsProf Blog

Editor: D. A. Jeremy Telman
Valparaiso Univ. Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Friday, 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?

[JT]

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2012/05/lucy-van-pelt-ponders-fundamental-contractual-issues.html

Commentary, Film Clips | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef016766c70577970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lucy van Pelt Ponders Fundamental Contractual Issues:

Comments

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

Post a comment