Episoder
-
Discussion of the economic duress case S.P. Dunham vs. Kudra.
-
Professors Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Dave Hoffman debate the meaning of chicken in the 1960 case of Frigaliment Importing vs. BNS.
-
Manglende episoder?
-
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.
- Vis mere
