A nice and concise chapter. I enjoy how it lays out a framework for attacking contractual issues: First, is tthere even a "contract" (consideration)?; Second, is the contract evenlegal? Third, even if the contract is legal, can it beavoideddue to certain factors (capacity, consent, or "writing" problems)?

Also, what about silence as acceptance? And what about mistakes? Pay special attention to the section regarding the "writing requirement," particularly which onesmustbe in writing as well as what a writingmustcontain. And I want you to have a passing familiatrity with the Sale of Goods (we will discuss this in length in later sections).

a) Scuba Steve left his boat to be repaired at Lake Whoahbegone Boat Repair Company. The boat contained electronic equipment and other personal items. Scuba Steve signed a form stating that Whoahbegonehad "no responsibility for any loss to any property in or on the boat." Scuba Steve's electronic equipment was stolen and other personal items were damaged, and he sued. Is the exculpatory clause enforceable? What even is an exculpatory clause?

b) Haddonfield Knife Co., an Illinois knife manufacturingcorporation, hired Michael Myers as a salesman and required him to sign a contract stating that if he left Haddonfield, he would not work for a competing corporation anywhere within 300miles ofIllinois for a three-year period. Later, Myers left Haddonfield and began working at Pumpkin Corp., anotherIllinois manufacturer. The only product Pumpkin made was fake pumpkins, which comprisedhalf of 1%of Haddonfield's business. Is Haddonfield entitled to enforce its noncompete clause? Should these type of clauses even be allowed? What it make a difference if Myers was forced to sign BEFORE his employment began vs. DURING his employment (in other words, his boss comes to him and says "if you want to KEEP working for us, sign this here noncompete contract")? What about for doctors? Dentists? Lawyers?

c) The McDonalds had several serious problems with their house, including leaks in the ceiling, a buckling wall, and dampness throughout. They repaired the buckling wall by installing I-beams to support it. They never resolved the leaks and the dampness. When they decided to sell the house on HGTV, they said nothing to prospective buyers about the problems. They stated that the I-beams had been added for "reinforcement." The Silversteens bought the house for $460,000. Soon afterward, they began to have problems with leaks, mildew, and dampness. Are the Silversteens entitled to any money damages? Why or why not? How much?

d) Cleveland Brown moved toQuahog,Rhode Island,to work at an insurance company owned by Peter Griffin. After he moved there, Peter offered to sell Cleveland a house he owned and Cleveland agreedin writingto buy it. Cleveland did, in fact, buy the house and move in, but two years later, he left the insurance company (because of the economy and those "malicious and dastardly plaintiffs' lawyers"). He then claimed that at the time of the sale, Peter had orally promised to buy backthe house at the selling price if Cleveland should happen to leave the company. Peter defended himself based on the statute of frauds. Cleveland argued that the statute of frauds did not apply because the repurchase of the house was essentially part of his employment with Peter. Who is correct in this situation and why?