About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


PRELIMINARY MATERIAL 1 (1927-1932)

handle is hein.ali/relagcy0067 and id is 1 raw text is: cauhribae, moll~. ~ ~9JT~. zfovenber 4,1927. Professor Floyd R. Mechem, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Illinois. Dear Mr. Mechem: In regard to the yellow sheet entitled Tentative addition to Sec- tion 245, I think that your statements are all true and that (e) comes within paragraph (a). I do not know what difference it makes as to which party knows or does not know of the usage and I append an analysis indicating what I suspect to be true. Case 1. A and B both know of i usage. Case 2. A and B both ',mow of the existence of a usage. Case 3. A knows of the usage, B does not know, but B has means of knowledge. Case 4. A knows, B does not know, but B has led A to believe that he has means of knowledge. Case 5. Neither party knows but each has means of knowledge as to the existence of the usage. Case 6. Neiuher knows brt each has means of knowledge as to the existence of usages. In all the above cases I would say resulting authrity would include the usage. Case 7. Neither party knows nor has grounds for knowledge of the usage. Case 8. One party knows and has belief or grounds of knowledge that the other party does not know of the usage. In the latter two oasea I would say that the usage woula, a6.. Your proposed section referring &e- the whole question of usage to Contracts is one way out of the difficulty, but I think the profession would be disappointed in not finding some statements in regard to usage in the Agency Restatement.