Follow us!

    Re: Painter Hypo

    Posted by -- on 12/06/08

    On 12/05/08, Renn wrote:
    > I entered a contract for the commission of a portrait as a
    > wedding gift to my sister and I wanted to sample the
    > artist's work first, so I told him to sketch my sister and
    > that we would decide by July 1. The contract said he would
    > be entitled to $1000 if we liked his work enough to order a
    > fully painted piece and that we would notify him if we
    > didn't like it by July 1. Otherwise, he would paint and
    > deliver the portrait by November 1.
    It appears that you entered into a contract for a portrait
    with a condition precedent. Your condition precedent is
    that you like his work as evidenced by the sketch he has
    agreed to do. In return for doing the sketch you have
    promised to notify him by July 1 if the condition precedent
    is satisfied and, if it is, to go forward with the contract
    terms. Here is the tricky part of your hypo. You have
    agreed that notice the condition precedent has been
    satisfied may be made by your silence. Silence is not
    usually a valid form of acceptance or notice. However if
    both parties agree ahead of time, without misunderstanding,
    that silence is to be a valid form of acceptance or notice,
    then it can be. Here silence is agreed to indicate
    satisfaction of the condition precedent and it sounds like
    you both understood exactly what your silence meant. This
    is not unheard of in contracts. Satisfaction is often a
    condition precedent to payment and it is common to stipulate
    that if satisfaction is not denied within a certain length
    of time, performance is fully executed and payment is due.
    (e.g., "Try it for 30 days and if not satisfied you pay
    nothing." Under these terms after 30 days you are validly
    bound by your silence or inaction.) I think your silence
    communicated satisfaction of the condition precedent and
    bound you to an enforceable contract for painting a portrait.
    > My sister realized that she didn't like the sketches on
    > July 4th (past the notification date) and we emailed him
    > not to bother finishing. He said we didn't notify him in a
    > timely enough manner, and continued to work on the
    > portrait and mailed it to us anyway.
    Parties to a contract are required to "mitigate" their
    damages in the case of a breach. Here it looks like the
    painter did not attempt to mitigate his damages and
    stubbornly continued to incur damages after being notified
    of your intent to breach the contract. This would be a very
    fact specific determination and we do not have enough facts
    in your hypo to determine if mitigation was possible.

    Let me know what grade I got on this hypo exam question.
    > Now we're stuck with a painting we don't want and he is
    > demanding the $1000. What do you suggest? How would a
    > court treat our case?

    Only sure way to find out is to go to trial.

    > I'm thinking the painter is still owed the $1000, in terms
    > of expectation damages for his performance, but because he
    > continued to work after being notified that we did not want
    > the portrait, the $1000 should be reduced by the amount of
    > the portrait's worth.

    Mitigation of damages is your only real issue for trial.
    You may have a viable issue but it could cost you more to
    win than you will win. Know what I mean?

    Posts on this thread, including this one
  • Painter Hypo, 12/05/08, by Renn.
  • Re: Painter Hypo, 12/06/08, by --.

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.