We reported five years ago on a contract-law hypothetical come to life: a criminal defense lawyer went on TV and said he’d give a million dollars if anyone could prove the prosecutor’s timeline was consistent with the known facts, whereupon an enterprising law student proceeded to do just that. The Eleventh Circuit said the proper test under Florida law was whether “a reasonable, objective person would have understood [the lawyer’s words] to be an invitation to contract.” And: “The exaggerated amount of ‘a million dollars’ – the common choice of movie villains and schoolyard wagerers alike — indicates that this was hyperbole.” And yet more: “we find it neither prudent nor permissible to impose contractual liability for offhand remarks or grandstanding.” [Ann Althouse, Lawrence Cunningham]
Posts Tagged ‘contracts’
“Did California just make it illegal for businesses to stop dealing with customers who insult them?”
An outcry has lately arisen over consumer contracts that purport to ban disparagement of the company that proffered the contract or its products, especially since a few such companies, seeking to silence customers vocally dissatisfied with products or services, have proceeded to sue them, threaten them with suit, or report them as credit risks. Although it is doubtful that existing law in fact permits practices of this sort, California proceeded to pass a new law protecting consumers from retaliation by companies they criticize — a law that appears to go much farther than just banning the practices that stirred the furor. [Volokh] Contra: Scott Michelman, CL&P.
Labor and employment roundup
- “Telling Employee He Is ‘Eligible’ For Bonus Not Enough to Create Contractual Obligation” [Chris Parkin/Daniel Schwartz; Connecticut appeals court]
- Richard Epstein on Obama’s anti-LGBT-discrimination edict for federal contractors [Hoover “Defining Ideas”]
- D.C. Circuit panel, Janice Rogers Brown writing, strikes down DC tour guide licensing scheme [Ilya Shapiro/Cato, WaPo, Orin Kerr]
- “Why Progressives Shouldn’t Support Public Workers Unions” [Dmitri Mehlhorn/Daily Beast]
- “James Sherk of Heritage on Members-Only Bargaining” [On Labor]
- As discrimination law gradually swallows all else: “Rep. Keith Ellison wants to make union organizing a civil right” [MSNBC]
- NY Senate committee gives approval to “workplace bullying” law. On thin constitutional ice? [Hans Bader/CEI, earlier]
Adventures in employment agreements
The town of Stratford, Connecticut entered an employment agreement with its director of human resources, stating that his employment would be entirely at-will and further providing:
Based upon the annual performance evaluation, and at the [m]ayor’s sole discretion and recommendation, the base salary may be increased on July 1 of each fiscal year, subject to the approval of the [council], which by Charter fixes the salaries of all mayoral appointees.
Subsequently, the town council voted to reduce the manager’s salary, and the dispute went to litigation. Both a trial court and a Connecticut appeals court agreed with the manager’s argument that even though the document prescribed an at-will relationship, by specifying that the base salary “may be increased” it was implicitly promising that it would never be decreased. [Daniel Schwartz; Adams on Contract Drafting]
Consumer non-disparagement clauses gone wild: the sequel
As we’ve reported earlier in a series of posts, an online supplier named KlearGear inserted into its customer agreement a clause prohibiting “any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com [or] its reputation.” When a couple nonetheless left a negative review, it billed them $3,500 and reported them for nonpayment to credit raters. The couple filed an action to which KlearGear failed to respond, and a court in Salt Lake City has now granted their request for a total of $306,750 including $250,500 in punitive damages, though the collectibility of that sum is unknown. [CL&P]
“Contract on toilet paper slammed by Saskatchewan Law Society”
Next: Sanitary League of Canada protests that use as legal retainer brings good name of toilet paper into disrepute. [CBC]
Students “told to destroy rare Dodge Viper”
Olympia, Wash.: “A community college says it’s the pride of their automotive technology program: a rare Dodge Viper donated to their school worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.” It’s believed to be the fourth one off the assembly line. But now Chrysler has “ordered the destruction of their entire educational Viper fleet.” It seems that while the prototypes were never meant to be driven on public roads, “two of them somehow got out and into accidents, costing Chrysler’s parent company millions of dollars.” Things might be different if our law respected a sale or other contractual agreement between Chrysler and the school as reason to release the manufacturer from a suit filed by an injured third party. But it doesn’t. Chrysler’s deadline for ordering the cars crushed has now passed; no word at present as to whether any of the cars have been reprieved or otherwise survived. [KING, AutoWeek, Tacoma News Tribune, Motor Trend]
Consumer nondisparagement clauses
A few weeks ago a furor broke out after it was reported that a company called KlearGear had billed customers $3,500 for giving it a negative review, pursuant to a non-disparagement clause prohibiting “any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com [or] its reputation.” Now it seems a company purveying refrigerated wine cabinets is using a similar clause [Matthew Hunt, Scotch Tape and Duct Whisky via WineBerserkers.com]
Constitutional and Supreme Court roundup
- Now available: 2012-13 edition of the celebrated Cato Supreme Court Review. And full video of Cato’s Constitution Day, at which many of the CSCR authors spoke, is up here;
- Is a hearing necessary if prosecutors freeze assets needed to pay defense lawyers? Court hears argument in forfeiture, money laundering case Kaley v. U.S. [ABA Journal, Jacob Sullum, Scott Greenfield, Harvey Silverglate]
- Court grants certiorari in greenhouse-gas case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA [Jonathan Adler, Richard Faulk]
- Ilya Somin briefly reviews three new books on constitutional law: John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport on originalism, Randall Kennedy on affirmative action, and Clark Neily on judicial engagement [Volokh]
- General jurisdiction: “Justices Wrestle With Whether California Law Reaches A Mercedes Plant In Argentina” [Daniel Fisher]
- Home Building & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell (1934) eviscerated the Contracts Clause, right? Well, it’s complicated [Gerard Magliocca]
- Much-noted interview with Justice Scalia [New York mag] Is there a conservative jurisprudence bubble? [Daniel McCarthy] New opera “Scalia/Ginsburg” [Washington Post]
- “The Fiduciary Foundations of Federal Equal Protection” [Gary Lawson, Guy Seidman, & Robert Natelson, SSRN]
June 15 roundup
- “The NYT revisits the Tawana Brawley rape hoax scandal — and Al Sharpton’s role.” [Ann Althouse]
- Is there any hope of reforming or repealing FATCA, the crazy overseas banking regulation? [Frederic Alain Behrens, SSRN via TaxProf, earlier here, etc.]
- Urbanophile is no fan of Toronto mayor Rob Ford, but also no fan of the campaign to drive him from office [Aaron Renn]
- Landlords face legal risk taking on ex-offenders — so where are they supposed to live? [Volokh]
- When does a strong central state advance individual liberty? Arnold Kling reviews Mark Weiner’s The Rule of the Clan [EconLib]
- Unenforceability of contract holds back Indian tribes’ prosperity [Terry Anderson]
- “Oklahoma High Court Nullifies State Tort Reform Law” [WLF, TortsProf, Tulsa World, Reuters, NewsOK, Beck (“the Oklahoma Supreme Court was plainly out of control in Ysbrand, and unfortunately it remains out of control to this day”), Douglas v. Cox]