Chapters 10-12 of the casebook provide the basis for a study of what contracts law means by the term "agreement" and considers both mechanical and nonmechanical ways by which the courts determine whether the parties have made an agreement. We will not be discussing in class every case and every note in the casebook. Please use the opportunity to ask questions and engage in discussions on our forum as well as in the classroom

Chapter 13 contains materials on implied-in-law and implied-in-fact contracts; we will be revisiting material, particularly on implied-in-law contracts that we covered in the fall term under the title "restitution." The last 20 pages of the chapter provides a brief introduction into the world of contracts in the form of employee handbooks, an important emerging part of contract law. We will spend two class hours on this chapter.

Chapter 14 brings us to the final part of our discussion of what contracts law means by the concept of "agreement" or "mutual assent." In this chapter we see parties who have engaged in negotiation but, to some degree, have fallen short of what they had anticipated to be their agreement in its final form. The issue for the courts is whether they have reached sufficient agreement to constitute an enforceable contract and, if they have not, whether any relief can and should be granted to a party who has detrimentally relied on their belief that an enforceable contract would be achieved by the negotiation. Needless to say, we will once again be revisiting both questions of communication and questions of reliance.

We now turn our attention to the Parol Evidence Rule and to the Statute of Frauds. Chapter 15 introduces you to the Parol Evidence Rule and then examines why the rule exists and how it is interpreted by the courts. At the heart of the Parol Evidence Rule is the notion that if the parties have taken the time to express their final agreement in writing, it is inappropriate for a court to allow one of the parties to introduce oral or written evidence which in any way alters the written agreement. At the heart of the Statute of Frauds is the concern that if parties do not set out their agreement in writing, there is a possibility that someone will fraudulently claim there was an agreement when, in fact, there was none. What joins these two rules is, of course, that they both concern writing - its importance and when it is required for a contract to be enforceable. What they also share is a conflict within each judge about when a rule designed to improve justice may seem to impede its attainment.

Chapters 16 and 17 focus on the special problems created by the use of form contracts. We have from time to time mentioned form contracts, but these two chapters develop in detail both problems in determining whether an enforceable agreement exists when a form created by one party is evidence of agreement and whether different rules of interpretation need to be applied in the interpretation of form contracts.

Chapter 18 deals with the Contracts doctrine of Mistake. You should reflect on its relationship to the material with which we began the semester, the doctrine of Mutual Assent. Are the underlying policies the same or different? What does each tell us about the other and about the goals of Contracts law? Section 1 of Chapter 18 introduces the law of mistake by examining a judicial decision in a case in which one party has made a mistake and wishes to be excused from performance. Section 2 presents a case in which there has been a mistake in the transcription of an agreement, that is, that the writing does not correctly reflect the agreement of the parties.