ContractsProf Blog

Editor: Myanna Dellinger
University of South Dakota School of Law

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

If you do not complete your comment within 15 minutes, it will be lost. For longer comments, you may want to draft them in Word or another program and then copy them into this comment box.