A document intended as acceptance is acceptance even though it has new terms

The new terms are only proposals though, and only apply if both parties agree to them.

If both parties are merchants than the new terms apply automatically unless one of the following:

 1.  The offer expressly limited the acceptance to the terms of the offer

2.  The offeror notifies the offeree of it's objection to the new terms

3.  The new terms materially change the contract

1.  In consideration of Marriage

2.  For sale of goods over $500

3.  for transfer of real property other than leases for less than 1 year

4.  For contracts that, by their terms, cannot be completed within 1 year

5.  To answer for the debt of another

1.  There must be a promise from promisor to promisee

2.  There must be realiance on the promise by the promisee

3.  The reliance must be of substantial economic detriment to the promisee

Express Conditions - must be meet explicitly

Constructive conditions - must be met substantially

1.  Degree of Reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct

2.  Disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive award

3.  The difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and those of similar cases

1.  Frequency

2.  Severity

3.  Physically threatening or humiliating

4.  Unreasonably interferes with job performance

5.  Has a psychological Impact

Not all necessary, but all important

1.  A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such and individual

2.  A record of such impairment

3.  Being regarded has having such an impairment

Williams did not meet this because work activities don't equal life activities

1.  The actor intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should ahve known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct

 2.   That the conduct was "extreme and outrageous"

3.  That the actions of the defendant were the cause of plaintiff's distress

4.  That the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was "severe" and of a nature the "no reasonable man could be expected to endure it"

1.  The tortfeaser made a defamatory statement

2.  The tortfeaser intended to communicate the defamatory statement

3.  The defamatory statement identies the victim to a reasonable person

4.  The defamatory statement was communicated to a third party

5.  The victim's Reputation was damaged

def - assumed to damage one's reputation

1.  a statement adversely reflecting on a person's business, trade, or profession

2.  A statement that a person is afflicted with a loathesome communicable disease

3.  A statement that a person has committed a crime or moral turpitude

4.  A statement imputing unchaste behavior to a person

1.  a false representation of a material fact

2.  knowledge by the person making the representation

3.  an intent to induce the listener to rely on the representation

4.  Justifiable reliance on the representation by the listener

5.  Damage to the duped party resulting from such reliance

1.  The defendant should have realized that his conduct woud be offensive to a reasonable person

2.  The intrusion goes beyond the limits of decency

(for movables)

1.  Interference with the owner's right of possession (took it)

2.  intent by the tortfeaser to do the act that constuted interference (intent)

3.  Interference caused damage to the owner's property (damage)

physical trespassing

 1.  Physically entering someon's property

2.  Putting the events in motion that causes something to invade anther's property

(pollutants, flooding, w/e)

1.  The existence of a duty to exercise the degree of case that a reasonable and prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances

2.  A breach of that duty by a failure to adhere to the standard of reasonable conduct

3.  That the reasonable conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury

 4.  Actual injury to the plaintiff

violates a statute.  unreasonable if:

1.  the injured person is within the class protected by the statute

2.  The injury was of the type that the statute was meant to prevent

mislabeled pills make guy sick = violation

corrugated floor (for sanitation) makes woman trip is NOT a violation

Contributory Negligence - the Plaintiff played a role and is therefore liable

Comparative negligence - the plaintiff played a role so judgment is reduced by the percent that they played

Assumption of risk - the plaintiff knew it was dangerous and did it anyway.  the defendant has no liability

where injury results from:

1.  a defective product that is unreasonably dangerous due to its defect

2.  the  keeping of dangerous or vicious animals

3.  abnormally dangerous activities