BLW 201 Study Guide - Final Guide: Chicago Medical School, Summary Judgment, Rescission
26 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Prof. Staruck
BLW 201
17 November 2016
Cases #1-#9
1. Case 9-2Robert Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School Illinois, Court of Appeals,
1976
Facts:
The plaintiff in this case is Robert Steinberg and he is suing the defendant, The
Medical School of Chicago, Illinois because he claimed that they breached a contract
when they evaluated his application for admission. The defendant had issued a brochure
for application of admission and the plaintiff had applied. The plaintiff argued that the
defendant had reviewed the application using criteria that was not asked to be included on
the application on the brochure. Steinberg claimed that there was a contract between the
Chicago Medical School and himself with the criteria that had been advertised because
the brochure offered to make an offer and his application and the submission of the fee to
the school equaled a contract that the school accepted, then reviewed his application,
hence a contract was then accepted.
The Medical School claimed that there was no contract because the school’s
brochure and then follow up application of said brochure did not constitute a valid
contract. The school claimed that brochures should be viewed by the courts to be general
proposals to be considered, examined, and generated to a final conclusion but in no way
was an official contract created by the follow up of the brochure.
Issues:
• Was there a contract created between Robert Steinberg and the Chicago Medical
School with his application? And should all the criteria advertised on the brochure
be the only criteria considered when reviewing the application?
• Does the Chicago Medical School brochure advertised and then followed up upon
create a contract?
Decision:
The court ruled in favor of Robert Steinberg. Steinberg and the school did enter
into an enforceable contract once the plaintiff applied and the defendant reviewed the
application.
Reasoning:
The court defines a contract as;
“an agreement between competent parties, based on consideration, sufficient in
law. It is a promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law gives
remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as duty.”
With this definition, the courts found that Steinberg and the Chicago Medical School had
entered into an enforceable contract because the school’s obligation under the contract
was stated in the bulletin in a definitive manner. Also the acceptance of Steinberg’s
application fee caused the school to be bound under the duty of the contract. Steinberg
also accepted the school’s promises which bound him to the contract as well. Therefore,
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
the acceptance on both ends of a contract make it valid and enforceable under a court of
law.
2. Case 10-2 Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. Supreme Court of
Minnesota, 1957
Facts:
Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. published two advertisements for
merchandise for $1 to the first patron to arrive to the store and purchase the item.
Lefkowitz was the first patron to arrive on both occasions and proceeded to buy the items
in the advertisement. The store refused to sell it to the plaintiff because he was a man.
The second time Lefkowitz arrived first in line again, and the store claimed there was a
‘house rule’ explaining he had to be a woman to accept their offer, allow the ‘house rule
was not advertised.
Lefkowitz filed suit against the store, making him the plaintiff and the store the
defendant, for breach of contract for not allowing the sales which were advertised for.
The advertisement stated the date and time, the price, and the object which was for sale,
both ads also stated that the offer was for first come first served. On both occasions
Lefkowitz was the first customer and on both occasions the defendant refused to sell to
him due to the ‘house rule’.
The defendant claimed that a newspaper offer could be withdrawn because of the
‘house rule’. The defendant also stated that the advertisement was an invitation for a
contract of sale and actually became a contract when an offer was made by a buyer and
accepted by the seller.
Issues:
• Was a contract created between the store and Lefkowitz upon publishing the
advertisement?
• What conditions make a newspaper ad an offer and a contract?
• Does the ‘house rule’ count as a condition for the contract to be acted upon?
Decision:
The court ruled in favor for Lefkowitz. A contract between the plaintiff and the defendant
was created as a result of the newspaper advertisement and fitting of the criteria
advertised.
Reasoning:
The offer was made clear did not say anything otherwise other than the sale price,
item, and time of sale. Also the advertisement stated that for a performance something
was promised in return. The plaintiff had been the first customer and fulfilled his end of
the contract with the performance so he entitled to performance by the defendant which
was the actually sales price advertised for the product regardless of the non-advertised
‘house rule’.
3. Case 11-4 Reed v. King, California Court of Appeals, 1983
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Facts:
Doris Reed purchased a house from Robert King under the impression that
property was in good living conditions. Reed was unaware that a woman and her four
children were murdered there ten years earlier. King and his real estate agent knew about
this but did not tell Reed because they felt the event would affect the value of the home
being sold. Reed later found out about the murders after hearing of it from her neighbors.
Also, the neighbors were asked not to inform her about the murders from King as it
would decrease the value of the house. Reed then sued King and the real estate agent for
rescission and damages of the property. Reed paid $76,000, but due to the events of the
past it was only worth $65,000. Reed is suing and seeking recession and damages. Reed
appealed the decision of the trial court and had it brought up to the State Court of
Appeals.
Issue:
• Does Reeds plead have enough support to request a cause of action?
Decision:
The trial court perceived the defect in Reed’s complaint to be a failure to allege
concealment of a material fact.
Reasoning:
If information known or accessible only to the seller has a significant and
measurable effect on market value and the seller is not aware of this effect, we see no
principled basis for making the duty to disclose turn upon the character of the
information. Physical usefulness is not and never has been the sole criterion of valuation.
4. Case 12-2 Denney v. Reppert, Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1968
Facts:
On or about June 12th or 13th, 1963, three armed men entered the First State
Bank, Eubank, Kentucky, and robbed over $30,000 from the bank. Three police officers;
Garret Godby, Johnny Simms, and Tilford Reppert, later apprehended the suspects and
recovered the stolen money. Information was provided that led to the capture of the bank
robbers by four bank employees; Murrell Denney, Joyce Buis, Rebecca McCollum, and
Jewell Snyder. Also it was stated that there was a $500 reward for the arrest and
conviction of each robber, for a total of $1,500 for all three.
Issue:
• Who is entitled to the money for the arrest and conviction; the four
employees or the police officers?
Decision:
Officer Tilford Reppert was awarded the money.
Reasoning:
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
17 november 2016: case 9-2robert steinberg v. chicago medical school illinois, court of appeals, The plaintiff in this case is robert steinberg and he is suing the defendant, the. Medical school of chicago, illinois because he claimed that they breached a contract when they evaluated his application for admission. The defendant had issued a brochure for application of admission and the plaintiff had applied. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had reviewed the application using criteria that was not asked to be included on the application on the brochure. Steinberg claimed that there was a contract between the. The medical school claimed that there was no contract because the school"s brochure and then follow up application of said brochure did not constitute a valid contract. Issues: was there a contract created between robert steinberg and the chicago medical. The court ruled in favor of robert steinberg.
