Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Four Principles | Both Sides Serious?

August 09, 2020

Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Four Principles | Both Sides Serious? | Silver Watch Case

August 9, 2020

Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X)

Unit 1 | Four Principles | Both Sides Serious? | Silver Watch Case

Instructor Charles Fried, Beneficial Professor of Law:

My re-written lecture notes for Unit 1, Four Principles – Both Sides Serious? – Silver Watch Case hyperlink: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ar6iJPTO61dwxDhdbPZ6aCO2Xxvv

Question: In our old silver watch second (2nd) case bargaining between Keller verses Holderman coordinated old silver watch bargaining activity through cooperation which leads to their trusts, promises, and commitments with one (1) another that was not a serious trade and, is this a contract that the government will stand behind?

Here are Two (2) out of Four (4) Principles in which, the government will not stand behind.

Invitation to Dinner – not intent to create a legal relation?
Silver Watch Case – Both Sides Must be Serious?

Let us move on to our second (2^nd) principle from another type of promise which is not a contract. In our next old silver watch case example Professor Fried will discuss, how the judiciary court judge described, the second (2^nd) principle from another type of promise between Keller (“the Defendant”) verses Holderman (“the Plaintiff”) coordinated old silver watch bargaining activity case which had taken place a long time ago, in the year of 1863. And, the judiciary court judge found, as facts, in which, Keller (the Defendant) gave Holderman (the Plaintiff) a personal check for an amount of three-hundred dollars ($300). And, Keller (the Defendant) had coordinated a bargained with Holderman (the Plaintiff) to give Holderman (the Plaintiff), three-hundred dollars ($300) written from Keller (the Defendant) personal bank account for Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch that was only worth fifteen dollars ($15). In which, Keller (the Defendant) purchased and kept the old silver watch until the day of the trial when Keller (the Defendant) had offered to return the old silver watch to Holderman (the Plaintiff) who had refused to receive his old silver watch from Keller (the Defendant), as shown in our picture image below.

[1]

You can imagine how this silver watch case plays out in the judiciary court system. The old silver watch coordinated transactional activity between Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) in which, the judiciary court judge had found Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff), old silver watch case was “a Frolic and a Banter.”

A Frolic and a Banter is the plaintiff was not expecting to sell, nor the defendant intending to buy, the conclusion should have been that no contract was ever made between them.[2]

The judiciary court judge had determined that Holderman (the Plaintiff) was not expecting to sell his old silver watch to Keller (the Defendant) nor Keller (the Defendant) was intending to buy Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch at the sum for which, Holderman (the Plaintiff) had attempted to drawn from Keller (the Defendant) personal checking account, a check for the amount of three-hundred dollars ($300). And, the judiciary court judge had decided, since, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch case was a Frolic and a Banter. Those are the words the judiciary court judge had ascribed, in order to describe Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) case, a Frolic and a Banter is most likely the judiciary court judge who was thinking to himself. In which, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) was most likely was drunk and fooling around in a bar when Holderman (the Plaintiff) had sold his old silver watch to Keller (the Defendant) in the amount of three-hundred dollars ($300). And, the judiciary court judge decided, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) case was not a serious contract because Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) coordinated old silver watch transactional activity bargained was not meant to be either a purchase, or a sale to one (1) another. And, Keller (the Defendant) personal written check in the amount of three-hundred dollars ($300) to Holderman (the Plaintiff) was worth nothing. Therefore, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch case is not a lawsuit that the government will stand behind, as shown in the official legal docket below.

Jacob F. Keller

Jacob Holderman.

Where defendant gave plaintiff his check for three hundred dollars for a silver watch, worth fifteen, but the whole transaction was a mere frolic and banter, the one party not expecting to buy the watch nor he the other to sell it, it was held that no recovery could be had upon the check, notwithstanding defendant had retained the watch, and did not offer to return it until the trial.

Submitted on briefs Apr. 17, 1863.Decided May 12, 1863.

Action by Holderman against Keller upon a check for $300, drawn by Keller upon a banker at Niles, and not honored. The cause was tried without a jury, and the Circuit Judge found as facts, that the check was given for an old silver watch, worth about $15, which Keller took and kept till the day of trial, when he offered to return it to the plaintiff, who refused to receive it. The whole transaction was a frolic and banter--the plaintiff not expecting to sell, nor the defendant intending to buy the watch at the sum for which the check was drawn. The defendant when he drew the check had no money in the banker's hands, and had intended to insert a condition in the check that would prevent his being liable upon it; but as he had failed to do so, and had retained the watch, the judge held him liable, and judgment was rendered against him for the amount of the check.

[249]

MARTIN CH. J.:

When the court below found as a fact that “the whole transaction between the parties was a frolic and a banter, the plaintiff not expecting to sell, nor the defendant intending to buy the watch at the sum for which the check was drawn,” the conclusion should have been that no contract was ever made by the parties, and the finding should have been that no cause of action existed upon the check to the plaintiff.

The judgment is reversed, with costs of this court and of the court below.

The other justices concurred. [3]

This legation between Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch case was an intent to create a legal relation was not to be taken serious enough from both parties involved, speaks for itself. In our pervious online lecture for the first (1^st) principle type example, the Invitation to Dinner, or the fifteen dollars ($15) old silver watch sold for three-hundred dollars ($300) in our current lesson which by the way, in those days were considered a lot of monetary currencies and, both cases does not create a legal relationship intentions And, if any judiciary civil court system would have enforced Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch case than the people possibly would have said, “well, the law…” to quote Doctor Johnson. …”is an as@.”

Our second (2^nd) principle type, both sides must be taken seriously between Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch case example stated above reveals both parties knowingly and willfully know their coordinated old silver watch bargaining activity through cooperation which leads to their trusts, promises, and commitments were a joke when neither parties did not take their old silver watch transactional trade bargain seriously. Well, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch case was not a kind of legal liability where the government wants to haul parties into any judiciary civil court system and used their force to stand behind parties interactions when both parties were not taken seriously with one (1) another transactional trade bargain.

Now, life of course is full of people who[m] is [are] selling items in a unit of measurements of an intrinsic value in type of money currencies, as payments for much more than those items are worth. For example, you have written a personal check for a set of designer Italian shoes, you have just purchased from the Designer Italian Shoes Store and, your intrinsic value in type of personal check, as payment was honored by the Designer Italian Shoes Store owner[s] and, your intrinsic value in type of personal check, as payment by law must be honored, or should be honored from the Designer Italian Shoes Store owner[s] because the cost of your designer set of Italian shoes, you have purchased was up to you on how much you are willing to pay for those designer set of Italian shoes, or a silly designer hat. And, the Designer Italian Shoes Store owner[s] does not want the judiciary civil court system interfering in the selling cost of their designers set of Italian shoes or products in which, the judiciary civil court system might possibly approximate those designers set of Italian shoes or products are worth around about the manufacturing costs of twenty dollars ($20) in order to produce them. So, the Designer Italian Shoes Store owner[s] is [are] going to inflate their designers set of Italian shoes or products costs in order to sell them to any person who[m] can afford to buy their designers set of Italian shoes or products in the amount of four-hundred dollars ($400). And, why not? If any person had purchased any items from a manufacturing costs in order to produce them than our entire United States fashion industry would lose their intrinsic value in type of money currencies revenue earnings results due from those items in which, any person had purchased were real deals from a manufacturers costs to produce those items.

Therefore, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch case was never kind of a real deal, stated in the last paragraph, as you who had purchased a set of designer Italian shoes with a personal check and, Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch case was not never a real deal at all and, their old silver watch case was a frolic and a banter.