In reading the Milliken case and the casebook’s study questions afterward, concentrate on the following issues:

1) What are the arguments for and against using the law of the place of contracting to determine the capacity of someone to contract? What are the arguments for and against using the law of the place of domicile of the person whose capacity is at issue?

2)  Imagine that under the law of Maine two-year-olds can contract. Under the law of Massachusetts (and everywhere else), they cannot. Billy, who is two, finds himself in Maine and enters into a contract with P. P then sues Billy for breach in Massachusetts court. What result?

3)  Assume that an offer is sent from Maine to Massachusetts. An acceptance is written up in Massachusetts and put into a mailbox there. Under the common law, the contract was consummated at the point of mailing. The offeror could not withdraw the offer after that point, even if the offeror had not yet received the acceptance by mail. So why was the contract in Milliken consummated in Maine? Why wasn’t it consummated when Pratt put his wife’s guarantee in the mail in Massachusetts?

4)  Consider the hypothetical in question 7 on pp. 24-25 of the casebook in both the 7th and 8th ed.. How would the case be decided under the First Restatement if brought in Indiana or Michigan.? (The First Restatement approach to the problem is discussed in question 3 on pp. 22-24 of the casebook in both the 7th and 8th eds.)

5)   The problem in question 7 on p. 24-25 of the casebook in both the 7th and 8th eds. is that where a contract was entered into is a legal question. So one must first choose a law to determine this question, the answer to which will then determine what law applies to the contract. Is there an analogous problem in torts? Imagine D exposes P to a harmful chemical in Massachusetts. P learns about the exposure in Maine where he worries about it. Finally, the physical harm from the chemicals manifest themselves when P is back in Massachusetts. Under the law of Massachusetts, fear of exposure is a legally cognizable harm. Under the law of Maine, it is not. P sues D in tort. Which law applies, Massachusetts or Maine? Does it depend upon the state one sues in?

6) Imagine that P and D contracted in Maine. P sues D for breach, but D argues that the contract is invalid because of fraud, P’s misrepresentations having been made in Massachusetts. Which law applies to determine the issue of whether the fraud is sufficient to invalidate the contract?

7)  D agrees to contribute money to a business in Massachusetts. He takes no part in the management of the business and receives a proportional share of the profits. Under the law of Massachusetts, D is not personally liable for the business’s debts. Under the law of Maine, D is personally liable. An agent of the business goes to Maine and enters into a contract with P. The business breaches and P sues D personally. Is D liable?

8)   X and D enter into an employment contract in Maine. Under the law of Maine, X cannot assign his interest in future wages. Under the law of Massachusetts, he may. In Massachusetts, X assigns his interest in future wages to P. Is the assignment valid?

9)  X and D enter into an employment contract in Maine. Under the law of both Maine and Massachusetts, D may assign his interest in future wages. But in Maine the assignment must be in writing, whereas in Massachusetts, it may be done orally. In Massachusetts, X assigns his interests in future wages to P orally. Is the assignment valid?

10)  Notice that under the First Restatement, the place of performance governs certain contractual matters. Consider the following:

a.   In Maine A orally agrees to clean the windows on B’s building in Massachusetts. Under Maine law the contract must be in writing to be valid. Under Massachusetts law it can be valid if oral. Is it valid?

b.   In Maine A agrees to sell and B to buy goods to be packed in Massachusetts in the presence of two adults. Under Maine law someone is an adult if 18 or over. Under Massachusetts law the relevant age is 17. 17 year olds are used. Has the provision been satisfied?

c.  Y, a married woman domiciled in Massachusetts, entered into a contract with X in Maine. X attempts to satisfy his obligations under the contract by delivering the money to Y’s husband in Massachusetts. The husband is, by the law of Massachusetts, entitled to the payment of debts due to the wife. This is not true under the law of Maine. Which law applies?

d.  P and D enter into a contract in Maine. Under the contract, D is to deliver coal to P weekly in Massachusetts. One week P is late in paying and D refuses to deliver coal the next week. P sues D for damages resulting from D’s failure to perform under the contract. Under the law of Maine, P breached by failing to pay, excusing D from further performance. Under the law of Massachusetts, D is not excused. Which law applies?

11) Reverse the Milliken case, so that Maine bars married woman from contracting and not Massachusetts. Would it make sense for Maine law to apply in this case?