NY Contract Law Principles 1 Flashcards
6 cards from real NYLE practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 6 NY Contract Law Principles 1 flashcards as text
Under New York law, which of the following constitutes valid consideration to support a contract?
Answer: A promise to refrain from exercising a legal right the promisee is otherwise entitled to exercise
Forbearance of a legal right — refraining from doing something one has the legal right to do — is classic valid consideration under New York law. Pre-existing duty, past consideration, and gift promises (even written) generally do not constitute sufficient consideration.
Under New York law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may render an otherwise unenforceable promise binding when:
Answer: The promisor made a clear and unambiguous promise on which the promisee foreseeably and detrimentally relied, and injustice can only be avoided by enforcement
New York courts apply promissory estoppel when there is (1) a clear and unambiguous promise, (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the promisee, (3) actual detriment, and (4) enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice. Nominal consideration, sophistication, and substantial performance do not independently satisfy promissory estoppel.
Under New York law, when a party to an executory contract unequivocally repudiates it before the date set for performance, the non-breaching party may:
Answer: Treat the repudiation as an immediate breach and sue for damages at once
Under New York's anticipatory repudiation doctrine, a clear, unequivocal refusal to perform before the performance date constitutes an immediate breach. The non-breaching party need not wait until the due date; they may elect to treat the repudiation as a present breach and immediately seek damages.
Under New York law, which category of third-party beneficiary has standing to sue to enforce a contract?
Answer: An intended beneficiary whom the contracting parties specifically meant to benefit
New York law follows the intended/incidental beneficiary distinction. Only intended beneficiaries — those the contracting parties specifically designated or clearly intended to benefit — have standing to enforce the contract. Incidental beneficiaries, regardless of the financial benefit they receive, have no enforceable rights.
Under New York law, a party seeking to void a contract for mutual mistake must generally show that:
Answer: Both parties shared an erroneous belief about a material fact that existed at the time of contracting, and the risk of the mistake was not allocated to either party
Mutual mistake in New York requires that both parties held a common, erroneous belief about a material existing fact (not a future event or market prediction), and that neither party expressly or impliedly assumed the risk of the mistake. Unilateral mistake, future uncertainty, or mere drafting ambiguity does not satisfy this standard.
Under New York law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing:
Answer: Prohibits each party from acting in a manner that would deprive the other party of the benefit of their bargain under the contract
New York implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract, but it only operates to protect the fruits of the existing bargain — it does not create new, independent obligations beyond the express terms. Courts will not use it to rewrite contracts or impose duties the parties never contemplated.