《英美契约法》教学大纲
课程编号：100472B
石桥拼音
课程类型：□通识教育必修课 □通识教育选修课
□专业必修课 √□专业选修课
□学科基础课
总学时：36讲课学时：实验（上机）学时：
的多音字组词学 分：2
适用对象：法学
先修课程：合同法
一、教学目标（黑体，小四号字）
本课程的教学目标是培训学生阅读和总结美国法院系统案件。本课程采取中英双语教学，采取的教材是美国合同案例。学生在学习完本课程后，应对美国法学院训练和学习方法有较为深入了解，并为以后阅读美国法院系统案例做一定准备。
二、教学内容及其与毕业要求的对应关系（黑体，小四号字）
本课程内容主要包括五个部分：合同形成、阻碍合同成立的法律理由、合同解释、阻碍合同履行的理由和违约责任。
本课程采取的教学方法是案例阅读，老师将在课堂上辅助学生做案件总结。由于涉及大量英语词汇，所以，本课程将对英语有较高要求。
在课前，学生要求预习并做案件总结；课堂上，将以某小组学生的作业为蓝本，大家分析和评价；课后，对已经完成的案件进行总结和复习。
本课程将辅助学生熟悉美国法院案件的阅读方法，可以帮助学生应对国际经济交往的法律需求。
三、各教学环节学时分配（黑体，小四号字）
教学课时分配
Week | Schedules |
1 | Joph A Lonergan v. Albert Scolnick |
2 | Fairmount Glass Works v. Grunden-Martin Woodenware Co. |
Dickinson v Dodds |
3 | Minnesota Lined Oil Co. v. Collier White Lead Co. |
踊跃发言再见了同学Carlton G. Beall v. Cecelia M. Beall |
4 | Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University v. Burgess |
La Salle National Bank v. Bega |
5 | Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green |
Test Date: Word and Reading Test |
Date of Delivering Your Cabrief: From 'Fairmout' to 'La Salle National Bank v Bega' |
6 | Sherwood v. Walker |
Ruth S. Halpert v. Martin G. Ronthal |
这也是一种荣誉7 | Natalie Weintraub v. Donald P. Krobatsch |
Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Co. |
8 | An Evaluation of a Contract |
R.R. v. M.H |
Date of Delivering Your Cabrief: From 'Sherwood' to 'Austin Instrument v. Loral Co.' |
9 | Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber |
Kirky v. Kirky |
| |
10 | Schnell v. Nell |
Test Date: Word and Reading Test |
11 | A Negotiation And Drafting of a Contract |
Date of Delivering Your Cabrief: From 'R.R. v M.H' to 'Schnell v. Nell' |
12 | Dale Warren Dyer v. National By-Products, Inc. | 风丹
Alaska Packers’ Ass’n v. Domenico |
13 | Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon |
The Singer Company v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company |
14 | Francis T. West v. United States Postal Service |
Taylor v. Caldwell |
15 | Paton v. Mid-Continent Systems |
Test Date: Word and Reading Test |
Date of Delivering Your Cabrief: From 'Dale Warren Dyer' to 'Taylor v Caldwell' |
16 | Michael E. KVASSAY v. Albert MURRAY |
Hawkins v. McGee |
17 | bluetooth Prentation and Cabrief of the Ca You Have Chon |
Date of Delivering Your Cabrief: From 'Paton' to 'Hawkins v McGee' |
| |
四、教学内容（黑体，小四号字）
Chapter1. Contract Formation – has a contract been formed?
a. basically K requires offer and acceptance of that offer. parties must somehow indicate their asnt to be bound by the K. when this is lacking there will be no K.
1. §20 – (1) no mutual asnt if parties attach materially different meanings unless (2) one party knows or has reason to know of the other meaning – then u that meaning
a. meeting of minds is sufficient but not necessary to create K under §20
b. See Raffles v Wichelhaus (Peerless Ca) – no meeting of the minds = no K to be enforced.
c. consider prior dealings, trade customs, language / terms of K, etc. in considering what meaning parties should have attached.
2. reasonable person standard: objective test: what reasonable person can infer from o
bjective actions about what party intended.
a. EX: if reasonable person would understand there to be a K, and party subjectively does so understand, then there is meeting of minds and a K.
b. don’t need a true meeting of the minds where subjective intent of both parties matches (§20)
b. Offer and Acceptance
i. What constitutes an offer (as oppod to initiation or element of bargain)?
1. consider surrounding circumstances – advertiments or circulars generally not considered offers; consider reasonable person standard – is it reasonable to view it as an offer?
2. generally price quotations are not offers – it is the order itlf that constitutes the offer
ii. Is there actual acceptance (before revocation or is purported acceptance really a counteroffer)?
1. offeror is master of the offer: valid acceptance depends on terms of the offer
a. §31 rebuttable presumption in favor of bilateral K – acceptance presumed to require promi to perform
b. 2-206(1) – offer may be accepted by any reasonable medium given the circumstance
c. sometimes (i.e. recurring transactions) commencement of performance counts as acceptance
新商会
d. rationale: promote efficiency – start performing rather than have added step of formal acceptance. one of promis in bilateral K may be implied promi.
2. Option Contracts
a. §25 basic option K – limits promisor’s power to revoke an offer; may be made in sam
e K or in a collateral K. must have parate consideration for the option.
b. §87(2) - K which offeror reasonably expects to induce reliance by offeree before acceptance and does induce reliance is binding as option K to extent necessary to avoid injustice.
3. Acceptance of a Unilateral K
a. acceptance requires complete performance
b. but §45 – Unilateral Option Contract: treats commencement of perf. as conferring an option K on offeree – right to complete perf. Offer becomes irrevocable on the part of offeror
i. offeror not bound to perform until complete perf received; only obliged to hold offer open
