Promises, Promises

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.