outline-Contract I- G

Contracts Outline

Enforceable Contracts

I.Quick History

a.Old Common Law (before 1800)

i.Writ of covenant: promise with seal (formalized and enforced)

ii.Writ of assumpsit: promise and consideration (not formal but still enforced).

b.Restatement I (19th and early 20th century)

i.Gratuitous promise: promises to make a gift.

ii.Promises of consideration: promises based on exchange or bargain.

iii.Simple formula for consideration:

1.Did A, in promising B, give up a legal right or promise to give up a legal

right? And,

2.Did A make that promise in whole or in part so that B would give up a

legal right?

iv.If both of these questions are yes, there is consideration and the contract is

enforceable. If the answer is No, then the contract is not enforceable.

1.Formal way of analyzing enforceable promises.

c.Restatement II (Early 20th century to today)

i.Formal way of analyzing problem was wrong.

ii.The consideration formula works, but we have to add reliance.

1.End up with a not just formula, but a series of cases that give precedents

of fairness.

II.Donative Promises, Form, and Reliance

a.Donative Promises

i.Daugherty v Salt—Promissory note alone not enforceable.

1.Aunt gives nephew promissory note. Nephew did not give up a legal

right. Therefore promise not enforceable.

ii.Conditional promises not enforceable unless there is some benefit on part of

promisor.

1.“If you hold out your hand, I will give you $5.” Not enforceable because

holding out hand is only means of executing promise—donative and no

consideration.

2.If doing a study on hands, then promise is enforceable because I benefit

from looking at your hand.

iii.Schnell v Nell—Nominal considerations are not enforceable.

1.Widower promises payment of sum left in wife?s will. Promises to pay

$200 in exchange for $.01.

2.Promise has the form of bargain but lacks substance.

3.Promise made only to make contract valid—but contract not valid

because it lacks consideration.

4.Exceptions to Nominal Consideration rule: Options and guarantees

a.Option: an offer to sell house at a set price can be binding with a

$1.00 consideration from the potential buyer.

b.Guarantee of another?s debt: a cosigner on a loan can be bound

by mere nominal consideration.

b.Reliance—Is P worse off because of Promise?

i.Kirskey v Kirskey—Case where no reliance doctrine gives unfair result. Move

toward a reliance doctrine.

1. D promises P living quarters if P sells her house. P sells house and

moves onto D?s property. D reneges on promise 2 years later.

2.Promise was donative and therefore not enforceable.

a.Conditional Promise: D told P to sell house only so D could give

P new living quarters.

3.D, however, did rely on that promise in selling her house. D harmed by

P?s failure to keep promise.

ii.Estoppel en Pais, promissory estoppel, and broader law of reliance

1.Estoppel en Pais—Reliance on a statement of fact.

a.If A makes statement to B, and B has relied on that statement, A

is prevented (estopped) from denying the truth of the statement in

court

b. A promises B wheat in warehouse as collateral on loan. A

defaults on loan. B requests wheat, but A says truthfully that the

wheat never existed. A is estopped from denying there was

collateral because B relied on A?s statement that there was wheat.

2.Promissory Estoppel—Reliance on Promise

a.Restatement 90— A promise that the promisor can reasonably

expect to induce action or forbearance on part of promise is

binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of

promise.

i.This overturns the ruling in Kirskey

b. Note that defendant is not estopped to deny lack of consideration.

3.Eisenberg?s law of reliance—Larger principle of reliance is any course

of conduct upon which someone relies.

a.Times Mirror: City sought to secure Times property under power

of eminent. Times purchased other land. City did not go through

with proceedings. Times sues claiming reliance on eminent

domain proceedings.

b.Times did not involve Estoppel in Pais (not representation of fact)

nor Promissory Estoppel (bringing the proceeding was not a

promise)—more like a threat to take property.

iii.Feinberg v Pfeifer Co.—Reliance upon a promise without consideration is enforceable.

1.P retires upon promise of pension; company later revokes pension; P

retired in reliance upon promise.

2.Although there was no consideration (P did not give up a legal right—

she could have kept working), she is in a worse position than she would

have been were the promise never made.

3.Contrast with Hayes—employee did not retire in reliance on promise.

a.Promise was made after P decided to retire—P would have

retired without promise and thereby is no worse off had the

promise not been made.

iv.Walters v Marathon Oi l--lost profits are a proper measure of damages in cases involving promissory estoppel.

1.Ps purchased and made improvements on vacant service station based on

promises made by (and negotiations with) Marathon representatives.

2.When D reneged on promise, P collected not only lost money, but lost

profits based on reliance principle.

3.Reliance Damages and Expectation Damages—Judges can decide either

remedy.

a.Reliance Damages—Puts P where she would have been had the

promise not been made.

b.Expectation Damages—Puts P forward were she would be had

the promise been kept.

III.The Bargain Principle and Its Limits

a.The Bargain Principle

i.Hamer v Sidway—consideration even when party is better off just from having

given up the legal right.

1.Uncle promised nephew sum if he refrained from alcohol, tobacco,

cursing and gambling until 21 yrs. Old.

2.Uncle dies, estate argues that there is no consideration since nephew was

better off from refraining and uncle did not benefit from refraining.

3.Court rules that a waiver of any legal right at the request of another party

is sufficient consideration.

ii.Davies v Martel Laboratory Service—giving up any legal right is sufficient for consideration.

1.In giving up the privilege to refrain from serving on Martel?s Council

and pursuing MBA degree, P suffered a legal detriment that constitutes

sufficient consideration between parties.

iii.Batsakis v Demotsis— ct. must award amount provided in terms of contract

regardless of whether those terms were fair

1.P lent D $25 and required D to pay back $2000 plus interest. D needed

money badly.

2.Ct. favors P but awards P only $750 (what ct. thought was fair). P

appeals for full amount and wins.

iv.Chouinard v Chouinard—Hard bargaining positions and financial circumstances do not constitute duress.

1.Brothers forced Father to settle ownership dispute before they would

sign for a loan that the company needed. Father labeled this approach

blackmail.

2.Duress usually granted only if party creates the circumstances that they

are exploiting.

v.Fraud and Duress

1.Fraud: misstating a present fact (lying) and having no intention of

keeping the contract.

a.I have to tell you every material fact about company/house I sell

you.

2.Duress: threatening party and putting party in danger in order to have

that party make a promise.

a.Promisee created the predicament.

vi.Post v Jones—Maritime law: when forced to make a promise in a helpless

situation that promise is not enforceable.

1.Sunken vessel?s cargo auctioned off; maritime law requires duty to

rescue; contract is unenforceable because one party had no position of

power.

2.In common law, duress issues in a contract usually only apply if the

defendant has put the plaintiff in the position of danger he is now

exploiting.

3.Stranded traveler example: should traveler be bound to a promise he

makes in a helpless situation?

a.There is consideration.

b.Eisenberg?s …distress? defense—like duress only applicable where

exploiting party does not create the helpless situation.

vii. People v Two Wheel Corp—Price gauging

1.During hurricane company sold generators at exceedingly high prices.

Ordered to pay restitution damages to those they so charged.

2.Price Gauging—during any abnormal disruption of the market for

consumer goods, no party within chain of distribution shall sell or offer

to sell any goods or services for an amount which represents an

unconscionably excessive price.

b.Unconscionability (last resort defense)

i.Unconscionability:

1.No Choice: An absence of meaningful choice on the part of party

together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the

other party, or

2.Gross Inequality: A gross inequality to one party, or

3.No Knowledge: Party lacked complete knowledge of the provisions of

contract.

ii.Unconscionability has three possible performance terms

1.Unconscionability of Price

a.Party does not get market price because

i.They were cut off from market (post v Jones)

ii.They were ignorant of price.

b.Party does get market price, but market price was unconscionable

(Two wheel and Batsakis)—the K may or may not stand.

2.Unconscionability of Object

a.You paid market price but didn?t improve your previous standing.

i.Buying two vacuum cleaners.

3.Unconscionability of Auxiliary Terms

a.Williams v Walker-Thomas Furniture—Contract voided when P

lacked proper knowledge of contract terms and terms were

unreasonable

i.Furniture contract contained pro rata clause that allowed

Store to repossess all items, though P owed very little on

each item.

b.Weaver v American Oil—paradigm example of courts stepping in

when P was unaware of risks.

i.P-leasor badly burned due to D?s negligence on leased

property.

ii.Lease contai ned a …hold harmless? clause that allocated

risks to leasor for negligence of leasee.

iii.Clause was unconscionable because P improperly bore

the burden of the risks.

iii.Substantive and Procedural Unconscionability

1.Substantive Unconscionability—Did not get market price.

a.Selling oil for $1 per barrel when it is worth $50

2.Procedural Unconscionability—cut off from market

a.Situation leaves you helpless so you must accept $1 for a barrel.

(procedural unconscionability will contain an element of

substantive unconscionability.

b.Situation surrounding K was unfair.

i.Two Wheel, Post v Jones.

c.The Problem of Mutuality—back to consideration formula.

i.Conditions that Activate Contract

1.Scott v Moragues—Conditional contract resting on will of party

becomes valid when party satisfies the condition.

a. D promises to transport goods if he buys a vessel. Buys vessel

but refuses to transport goods. P recovers.

i.Satisfies consideration formula—D gave up legal right to

buy boat and not charter it.

b.Contract exists before condition is met. Satisfying the condition

activates the contract.

2.If condition is outside the promisee?s power, the contract is binding.

a.“I promise to give you shelter if it rains” is binding.

ii.Conditions of Satisfaction Contracts

a.Functional Satisfaction—for example, the operative function of a

product.

i.Courts use an objective standard of …reasonable person? to

measure degree of satisfaction when a contract involves

such satisfaction requirement.

b.Satisfaction involving fancy, taste, or judgment—such as whether

one is satisfied with a portrait of themselves.

i.Here the subjective judgment of individual is the only

standard by which to measure satisfaction.

1.McCartney v Badovinac—reasonable person standard

a.Detective sues client. P was hired to find the thief of a diamond.

Detective f inds that client?s wife stole diamond. Client refuses to

pay because he was not satisfied. Detective wins suit—

reasonable person would be satisfied.

2.Morin Building Products Co. v Baystone Construction, Inc.

a.P hired by D for contract work on manufacturing facility. D

wanted buildings to be similar in color and construction. Upon

completion, D was unsatisfied and refused to pay. Jury finds that

a reasonable person would be satisfied—D loses.

3.Forman v Benson—subjective standard

a.Buyer made offer to purchase real estate paid over 10 yr period.

Seller added provision …subject to seller?s approving buyer?s

credit. Seller accepted offer but upon receiving credit report

refused to sell real estate. P?s credit did not meet D?s subjective

standard for good credit.

4.Fursmidt v Hotel Abbey Holding Corp.

a.Hotel reneges on 3yr K holding P responsible for laundry and

valet services under proviso that services must meet the approval

of hotel. P brings suit. Jury had to decide not only whether the

hotel was in fact dissatisfied (subjective) but also whether the

dissatisfaction was reasonable (objective).

iii.Requirement and Output Contracts—UCC 2-306

1.Wickham & Burton Coal Co. v Farmers? Lumber Co.—An agreement is

not mutual where there is an obligation to sell but no obligation to buy,

or an obligation to buy but no obligation to sell.

a.Where one party offers to sell as much as another party wants or

needs, there is only a contract if the buying party declares the

quantity it will take.

2.Requirement and Output contracts are valid so long as the quantity is

specified

a.There is no consideration unless there is a set quantity. Each

order is treated as a separate contract.

3.Requirement Contract—all of buyer?s demand comes from seller.

a.Seller promises to supply all of buyer?s require ments of a defined

commodity (at a stated price over a designated period of time),

and

b.Buyer promises to purchase all of his requirements of the

commodity from the seller.

c. A shut-down by a requirements buyer for lack of orders might be

permissible when a shut-down merely to curtail losses would not.

i.Test here is good faith—UCC 2-306

4.Output contract—all of sellers product goes to buyer

a.Buyer promises to buy all of a seller?s output of a given

commodity (at a stated price over a designated period of time),

and

b.The seller promises to sell all of her output of the commodity.

c. a sudden expansion in plant by which requirements are to be

measured would not be included within scope of contract

i.Test here is good faith—UCC 2-306

iv.Terminal At Will Contracts--illusory

1.Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co v Orange Crush Co

a.Contract included a proviso which stated that licensee could

terminate the contract at any time. The contract is therefore not

binding. A 90 or even 10 day notice might have made the

contract binding.

2.Lindner v Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.

a. A right to terminate on 10 days notice is not an illusory promise

since at the very least the lessee bound itself to pay rent for ten

days.

3.Gurfein v Werbelovsky—Not Terminable at Will

a.Buyer does not have complete freedom in a …cancel order any

time before shipment? clause, since product could be shipped on

day the order is received.

b.Such contracts are enforceable (buyer suing product manufacturer

here).

v.Notes on Illusory Promises

1.In an illusory promise as applicable to commercial transactions, one

party makes a real promise while the other uses an expression that seems

to be a real promise, but it is not because it does not limit that party?s

future conduct.

a.“I promise to do as you ask if I please to do so when the time

arrive s” is not a promise.”

2.Mattei v Hopper—K gives P-purchaser of property 120 days to produce

check and close sale, but K also provided an …out? by stipulating that P?s

obligation to close was contingent on his obtaining other satisfactory

leases.

a.K contingent upon whether P was satisfied with other land

purchases. Nevertheless CA S.Ct. held that promise was genuine

despite …satisfactory? condition.

i.Test is good faith.

b.If it were P that breached, the ct. might give satisfactory the

objective person standard.

c.O n the other hand, K seemed to lack consideration on P?s part

because he did not give up a legal right according to K terms.

d.Here a seemingly illusory promise was enforceable much like a

home-buyer waiting on a bank loan in “good faith” is enforceable.

Even though there is no consideration, the fact that it is done in

good faith makes it enforceable.

vi.Implied Promises

1.Wood v Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordan—a duty that is implied in the contract

but not specifically mentioned may not be illusory.

a. D argues that there w as no mutuality in the contract. P?s duties

were not expressed in the contract.

b.Ct. favors P in that the promise on the part of P was implied in

the contract.

d.Performance of a Legal Duty as Consideration; Modification and Waiver of Contractual

Duties.

1.Legal Duty Rule—a promise to perform an act that the promisor was

already obliged to do is not consideration.

ii.Duty to public official

1.Slattery v Wells Fargo—preexisting duty to public official bars further

consideration to perform duties.

a.Polygraph operator cannot claim reward for learning information

of a crime during the course of administering a polygraph test.

b.P had a preexisting duty to supply all information learned in test

to public.

iii.Duty to 3rd party

1.Denney v Reppert—Duty to employer bars further consideration to

perform duties.

a.Employer stopping bank robber is not entitled to reward as they

had a preexisting duty to bank to protect money.

iv.Duty to contracting Party

1.Lingenfelder v Wainright Brewery Co.-- second agreement cannot raise

price of services but have services remain the same—hold up situation

a.Architect with threats to breach contract renegotiates to include

5% of Co. profits but no new duties.

b.Arch had a preexisting duty to Co. to perform duties and

therefore not entitled to 5% of profits.

c. By taking advantage of bargaining power, P entered into a new

contract. He is estopped from collecting on this contract in virtue

of lack of consideration (did not give up a legal right as he was

already obligated by contract).

2.Foakes v Beer--new agreement cannot nullify the previous one

a.Foakes owes Beer 2000 under prior loan agreement. Beer states

that if you give me 500 now, I will waive the interest. Foakes

gives the 500 but Beer sues to collect on interest. Beer wins

b.Principle: 5 dollars cannot be satisfaction for 25 dollars.

3.Austin v Loral-- If one agrees to the promise and pays the increased price,

they cannot collect the difference in price under legal-duty rule; they

must claim duress

a.Loral sues under Duress when Austin demands an increase in

price for their services. Cannot sue for moneys under legal-duty

rule because they already gave up right to money in paying the

increased price.

b.In order to show duress Loral must show that

i.Austin didn?t deliver

ii.Attempts to find another dealer failed.

c.Duress in a Plaintiff?s strategy while the legal-duty rule is a

Defense.

v.Modification to existing contract

1.Angel v Murray—good faith renegotiations are enforceable if both

parties agree.

a.City trash collector modifies contract in response to a sudden

increase in housing developments.

b.Ct. enforces contract modification only if parties voluntarily

agree, and

i.The promise modifying original K was made before the

contract was fully performed on either side,

ii.The underlying circumstances that prompted modification

were unanticipated by parties,

iii.The modification is fair and equitable.

c.Restatement 89a

2.Sugarhouse v Anderson—Restatement 89c

a.renegotiated debt payment; plaintiff then backs out of settlement

deal after defendant has arranged new financing.

b.Promissory estoppel: plaintiff is denied from backing out of

settlement because the defendant relied on the promise and was

induced to take out a third-party loan.

c.New Consideration

3.Schwartzreich: both parties (fashion designer and his employer)

voluntarily tear up the first contract; thus able to give up legal rights in

the second contract (though the agreement is for the same performances)

a.Parties did in two steps what you can?t do in one—a …hold up?

situation? See this on final

b.New Consideration

vi.Waivers

1.Clark v West—Performance Conditions—can be waived.

a.Conditions aren?t promises

b.No drinking clause in contract made as a condition to producing

quality books on time.

c.No drinking was not consideration as Company was paying

author for books, not to abstain from drinking.

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/2211432641.html,pany got what they wanted despite P?s not meeting

condition.

d.The clause could be waived because it was a condition in the

contract—waiver is not modification of contract.

e.Reinstating conditions: although conditions can be waived, they

can also be reinstated with proper notice: neither of these actions

involves contract modification.

IV.Past Consideration—not bargained for but special forms of donative promises

a.If person recognizes a moral obligation and promises under one of the following

situations, it is binding (because the reason for barring enforcement is no longer an issue)

i. A Promise by an adult to pay a debt barred by the statute of limitations.

ii. A promise by an adult to pay a debt incurred when the adult was under the legal age (so that the contract was not enforceable against her).

iii. A promise to pay a debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy.

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/2211432641.html,ls v Wyman

i.25 yr old sick with no money taken in by P-Good Samaritan. Given shelter and

medical treatment. Young man dies. P writes letter to D-Father of Boy asking

for compensation. D writes back promising compensation, but fails to pay.

ii.Promise lacked consideration since Father did not benefit. (P did not give up legal right).

c.Webb v McGowin

i.P-worker suffers injuries in order to divert fatal log falling on D-boss. D

promises to give stipend for life.

ii.P?s promise involved consideration since he was paying a service he received—ie his life.

d.See Restatement of Contracts Second Section 86

i.In the illustrations it looks like all of the cases where past consideration is

binding contained the situation where the promisor in some way benefited prior

to making the promise (unlike Mills where the father did not benefit—and the

promise was not binding). Could this be an underlying principle? Yes, it is.

e. 3 categories of situat ions where A confers benefit on B w/o B?s prior request:

i. B is legally obliged to compensate A under the law of unjust enrichment (A paid

B money by mistake)

ii. B is morally but not legally obliged to compensate A (A suffers injury in

rescuing B)

iii. B is neither legally nor morally obliged to compensate A (A gives B a birthday gift)

1.If B later promises to compensate A, in situations (i) and (iii), B is not

legally bound to do so based on that promise.

2.Under (i) the law permits recovery whether or not B promises.

3.(ii) is enforced if promised

Expectation Remedies—the injured party should be put in the position where they would have been had the contract been performed.

I.Damages for breach of a contract to perform services

a.Breach by the person who has contracted to perform services

i.Court usually awards the lesser of the cost of performance (Caroline Nursing

Home) and the value upon completion (Peevyhouse). The exception is personal

value.

ii.Louise Caroline Nursing Home Inc. v Dix Construction—Court would award nursing home the price it would cost to complete the construction, not the value

of the completed building.

iii.Peevyhouse v Garland—Cost of restoring land to previous condition would far exceed the price of the land at that condition.

1.Diminution in value—difference between the present value of the land

and what its value would have been if D had fulfilled promise. ($300)

2.Cost of performance—amount it would cost D to fulfill promise

($29,000)

3.Awarding cost of performance would involve unreasonable economic

waste. P unlikely to use award to restore land.

iv.The ugly monument hypothetical. Value to owners vs. value to someone else.

1.If value to owner is genuinely higher than the market value, then court

might justifiably award cost of performance.

2.If construction of statue will decrease the value of the property, the

contractor cannot just take the money and claim that he owes nothing

citing the diminution of value rule. Rather, There is a good faith

personal value attached to the statue. Here cost of performance is

awarded.

v.Eastern Steamship v United States—U.S. military contract to lease steamship and return it in a similar condition.

1.Cost of repairs would be 4 million while cost of a new steamship would

be 2 mil. Court awards 2 million for new steamship. (No Personal

Value, as in Peevyhouse)

vi.H.P. Droher & Sons v Toushin—Where the cost of remedying a botched

construction performance is far greater than the benefit that would be received

from completed effort, owner can recover the difference between the value of

the land had K been completed correctly and the value of the land as it stands

with the botched job.

1.Similar to the hairy fist: recover the difference in value between what

you expect (a good hand) and what you have (a very bad hand).

vii.City Schools of Elmira v McLane Construction—Construction company builds swimming pool with ugly beams. Aesthetic value lost.

1.Cost of performance was 357,000 and diminution value was 3,000.

Court awards cost of performance.

2.If a personal value is attached to the object, court may award the cost of

performance. Otherwise, market value applies (diminution of value).

Good Faith Essential.

a.Personal Value

b.Court knew that the money awarded would be used to fix the

pool.

viii.Everything comes back to the principle: put the person forward where they

would have been had the contract been kept.

ix.Grossman Holdings v Hourihan—Contractors build house with awning not

facing sun. The price of home increased substantially since breach. Cost of

performance improper because of economic waste.

1.Diminution of value is proper: diminution of value should be measured

as of the date of the breach.

x.Ruxley v Forsyth—Cost of performance to make pool deeper would be 21,000 pounds. The diminution of value was 0.

1.Court awarded 2,500 pounds for loss of amenity—remedy for loss of fun.

(Personal value, but economically wasteful to build a new pool)

b.Breach by a person who has contracted to have services performed.

i.Aiello Construction v Nationwide tractor trailer—D stopped making installment

payments to P-contractor.

1.Formula: expected profit plus amount already spent minus amount paid.

2.An algebraically equivalent formula that courts more often use is: price

of completed contract, minus cost builder saved by not completing,

minus amount already paid.

a.This formula is a bit bett er because it doesn?t use profits (which

could be negative if the contract is a losing one).

3.Nanosecond rule: if the person breaches a nanosecond after signing the

contract, he owes the expected profits (fits the formulas above).

ii.Wired Music v Clark—No Lost Volume Provider

1.Wired music has an infinite number of product and they could have had a

contract had the new store owner moved next door and D kept contract.

2.Damages were not mitigated, so full price of K awarded

3.Lost volume provider would be a carpenter who has only one set of

hands—damages can be mitigated if carpenter takes a new job

a.When considering a lost volume provider: If there is no loss from

a second contract, then there are no damages

iii.Vitex v Caribtex—Overhead expenses cannot be deducted from lost profits.

1.$2,500,000 (K price) minus 2,100,000 (overhead—cost of production

and facility)=$400,000 profit

2. A nanosecond later the client breaches

3.Damages not just $400,000 for lost profits? No.

4.Overhead: depreciation and fixed costs. These are not to be considered

as mitigating damages because the contract price covers the overhead.

He pays the overhead ($1,5000,000) then pockets the profit ($400,000).

Award is $19,000 of lost profits.

a.Paying employees are not overhead because they are only needed

for actual production, not just the value of the facility.

II.Mitigation—Contracts for Employment.

a.Rockingham County v Luten Bridge Co.—County orders that construction of bridge be

stopped. Bridge Co. continues to build bridge and files suit when it is completed.

i.P had a duty to reasonably cut losses of the other party and not pile up damages.

b.Madsen v Murrey & Sons—100 pool tables order cancelled. Seller dismantles

customized pool tables and sells them for scrap.

i.Seller had a duty to mitigate damages by trying to sell pool tables at discounted

price.

c.In Re Kellet Aircraft Corp.—After breach, a several builders bid to complete project.

i. D argues that P did not properly mitigate damages because they did not take the

lowest bidder.

ii.Court rules that decision was reasonable, because bidder chosen had

satisfactorily performed for them in the past.

d.S.J. Groves v Warner Co.—Where both P and D have had equal opportunity to reduce

the damages by the same act, D is in no position to contend that P failed to mitigate.

e.Shirley MacLaine v Twentieth Century Fox—Film Company breaches but offers

Actress an inferior role in a film to be filmed in Australia.

i.General Rule of Wrongfully Discharged Employee: amount of salary agreed

upon less the amount that employer affirmatively proves employee has earned or

might reasonably have earned from other employment.

1.Unless the employment was of a different or inferior kind, or

employment was at a considerable distance from his home (Punkar).

ii.It is the burden of D to show that mitigating damages would not cause P undue risk/burden/humiliation.

f.Mr. Eddie v Ginsberg—Ginsberg wrongfully discharged and finds temp. job.

i.Ginsberg entitled to recover for all unemployment time before and after the

temporary job, provided he was looking for a similar job in good faith.

g.Southern Keswick v Whetherholt—P wrongfully discharged and accepts temporary

employment of an inferior and different kind.

i.P tries to recover for time while working at inferior position.

ii.Having accepted the inferior position, however, he mitigated his losses and

therefore is only entitled to recovery for time while unemployed.

iii.Had he not accepted the inferior position, he would have been entitled to full recovery.

h.Damages for the loss of opportunities to work in one?s profession

i.If P can prove that he failed to find employment in his profession after discharge,

he may be able to recover.

ii.The damages here are for hurt reputation (Redgrave—not allowed to be made famous by employment)

III.Foreseeability (limitation)

a.Hadley v Baxendale—Mill must be stopped for repair of shaft. Delivery delayed. Mill

sues for lost profits.

i.One who breaches is only liable for damages that could be foreseen at the time

the contract was executed.

ii.This is a qualification to the principle: recovery puts the person forward where they would have been had the promise been kept (provided damages resulting

from failure to perform were foreseeable at the time the contract was executed)

b.Victoria Laundry—boiler damaged in delivery and laundry service sues for lost profits.

Delivery service did not have specific knowledge of possible damages, therefore P can

collect only damages that would happen in the normal course of events.

i.Damages are foreseeable in two ways:

1.They happen in the normal course of events (general knowledge)

2.The party was told of the damages incurred upon breach (specific

knowledge)

c.Specific knowledge: K with cab driver to get P to airport in 2 hours or P will lose $1 mil

deal. Cabbie has specific knowledge and is therefore liable if he fails to perform.

Without this specific knowledge he would not be liable since it is not in the normal

course of events that delay to airport will cause loss of $1 mil deal.

d.Koufos v Czarikow—D breaches contract and causes P suffer losses from the increase

in price of sugar

i.Fall in the price was foreseeable although not certain.

ii. A 25 % chance is foreseeable, while a 2% chance is not.

iii.Only foreseeable damages at time K was executed are recoverable.

e.Hector Martinez and Co. v Southern Pacific Transp.—Machine arrives in three

shipments, the last being substantially delayed.

i.Lost Rental Value awarded--Eisenberg includes this case to show the rule of

Foreseeability is unpredictable.

f.Restatement Second 351

i.Damages are not recoverable for a loss the party did not foresee when contract

was executed.

ii.Foreseeable

1.Ordinary cause of events (general knowledge)

2.Not ordinary, but party had reason to know (specific knowledge)

IV.Certainty (limitation)

a.Kenford Co. v Erie County—Contract to build a super-stadium. City breached and

stadium was never built. Contractor sues for lost profits over 20 year period

i.In order to recover future profits as damages, P must show

1.Damages are reasonably certain and not merely speculative (comparable

with like business in similar location)

2.Damages must be within the contemplation of the parties at the time it

was executed.

ii.New Business Rule—If a new business is seeks to recover for loss of future profits, a stricter standard is imposed for the obvious reason that there does not

exist a reasonable basis of experience upon which to estimate lost profits with

the requisite certainty.

iii. A later case (Perma) added a third element for recovery of future damages that stems from the ruling in Kenford:

1.There is a rational basis by which to calculate the profits.

b.Ashland Management In

c. v Janien—P invested in a new computer program for

investing in stock market. K stated that if D left Company for any reason, he was

entitled to 15% revenue on future accounts.

i.The requirement that damages be reasonable certain does not require absolute

certainty.

ii.In this case the projection of future profits does not require speculation because the program is grounded in historical analysis of profits.

c.Rombola v Cosindas—Rombola agreed to train, maintain and race Cosindas? horse, and

Cosindas would get 25% of winnings. Horse won several times and before a meet

Cosindas took possession of horse and refused to race her.

i.Damages were awarded based on horse?s success at previous races.

ii.Certainty grounded in track record.

d.Contemporary Mission v Famous Music—Famous music had an obligation to use

reasonable efforts to promote Virgin on a nationwide basis (under Wood v Lucy).

i.Court admits evidence of records with similar chart numbers that subsequently

rise in the charts and increase profits. Damages awarded based on performance

of records rated similarly in the charts.

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/2211432641.html,paring P with others in the past who got as far as she did, P recovered.

e.Restatement Second Contracts 352—Damages are not recoverable for loss beyond the

amount the evidences establishes with reasonable certainty.

f.In cases where a promoter wrongfully disqualifies contestant, the chance to win should

be treated as an asset.

i.Eisenberg suggests that the value of a chance to win would be what a willing

buyer of the chance would pay to a willing seller

ii.Eisenberg suggests that this rule should apply to lost profits as well: lost profits should be measured by what a willing buyer would have paid for the pre-breach

assignment of P?s right to earn profits under the contract.

g.The right to make profit is an asset and can be measured by Capital Asset Pricing Model

(CAPM)—a formula measuring expected cash flow.

i.Risk and uncertainty is factored into this formula

ii.40% chance of making 25 mil, 50% chance of making 30 mil, and a 10 %

chance of making 40 mil over the next 10 years. The award based on this

formula would be 29 million

1.(10 + 15 + 4 = 29).

iii.Second best alternative: minimum amount that is more probable than not (30 mil in the example above).

h.Mears v Nationwide—contest prize of 2 Mercedes. Nationwide failed to deliver

claiming that contract was too indefinite to enforce because there was a wide range of

Mercedes models new and used.

i.Under a reasonable interpretation of the contest contract, jury could expect

Mercedes to be new.

V.Damages for Mental Distress

a.Valentine v General American Credit—P sues for mental damages when she was fired.

The discharge of employment was a breach of contract on D?s part.

i.Although the damages of mental distress may have been foreseeable at the time

the contract was executed, there can be no recovery for mental damages

resulting from a breach of employment contract. (tort, not a contract claim) ii.Exception: contracts were entered into for personal interests and not pecuniary gain

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/2211432641.html,ne v Kindercare Learning Centers—child locked in daycare with no supervision.

i.Holding: damages may be awarded for emotional distress caused by a breach of

a personal contract even where the emotional distress does not result in a

physical injury.

ii.Damages for emotional distress may be recovered for the breach of a contract in cases that do not involve commercial or pecuniary contracts, but involve

contracts of personal nature.

c.Jarvis v Sean Tours—P sold a vacation package that was a flop.

i.If Contract providing entertainment or enjoyment is breached, recovery may be

allowed for disappointment, loss of enjoyment, distress, and frustration caused

by the breach.

ii.Personal Interest in vacation (not pecuniary)

d.Jackson v Horizon Holidays—Facts similar to Jarvis except breach involved entire

family.

i.P could recover damages for the mental distress suffered by whole family not

just himself.

e.Deitsch v Music Co—Wedding band did not show. P recovered for distress,

inconvenience, and diminution in the value of wedding reception.

i.Personal Interest in entertainment (not pecuniary)

VI.Liquidated Damages—(“reduced to cash” clauses)

a.Wasserman?s Inc. v Middleton

i.Penalty Clauses v Liquidated Damages Clauses

1.Liquidated damages are the sum a party agrees to pay upon breach of

contract as an estimate in advance of the actual damages that will likely

ensue from breach.

a.Made to avoid litigation—but courts must ensure that remedy

does not stray too far from legal principles.

2.Penalties are the sum a party agrees to pay in the event of a breach and

act as punishment or threat designed to prevent the breach.

ii.Liquidated damages are enforceable. Penalties are not enforceable.

1.In order to be considered liquidate damages, clause must constitute a

reasonable forecast of injury resulting from breach.

iii.Two moments by which to measure the reasonableness of the liquidated

damages.

1.At the time the contract was executed

2.At the time the contract was breached

iv.If damages provided for in contract are grossly disproportionate to actual harm, court will likely find provisions unreasonable and thereby unenforceable.

v.Damages have to have some degree of uncertainty in order to recover for

liquidated damages. If damages are certain, liquidated damages do not apply

because actual damages will be relevant.

b.If damages are uncertain at the time the contract is executed, but certain at the time of

the breach, then liquidated damages clause does not apply.

i.Must be uncertain at the time the contract is executed and at the time it is

breached

c.Hutchinson v Tompkins—Pembroke Rule and the Hyman Rule

i.Hyman—in order for clause to be penalty, damages must be ascertainable at the

time of the drawing of contract—Hutchinson

ii.Pembroke—in order for clause to be penalty, damages must be ascertainable at the time of the breach—Oldsmobile

d.Liquidated damages are enforceable when

i.The estimation was reasonable?

ii.The damages are not ascertainable?

Specific Performance

I.Specific Performance is an equitable form of relief.

Like service, if thing is uqiuefungible thing can use damage

a.London Bucket v Stewart—P demands specific performance in breach of installation of

heating system for large Motel

i.Specific performance should not have been decreed because damages are

fungible.

b.Restatement Second of Contracts

i.359: Specific performance will not be ordered if damages would be adequate to

protect expectation interest of the injured party

ii.360: In determining the remedy the following factors are significant

1.The difficulty in proving damages with reasonable certainty

2.The difficulty of procuring a suitable substitute performance by means of

money

3.The likelihood that award of damages would not be collected.

c.Walgreen Co. v Sara Creek Property—Sara Creek shopping mall allowed a phar mor to

open on anchor premises in breach of contract with Walgreen co containing exclusivity clause.

i.Benefits of substituting injunction for damages

1.Shifts the burden of determining the cost of D?s conduct from the court

to the parties.

a.There must be a price for dissolving the injunction that would

make both parties better off, and having the parties negotiate this

price would save court time and money of finding that price.

b.Prices and costs are more accurately determined by market than

by court.

ii.Costs of substituting injunction for damages.

1.Continuing supervision by court

2.Bilateral monopoly—parties can negotiate only between themselves

3.Negotiation costs may be high

4.Building reputation as hard bargainer may cause the process to break

down.

iii.Not every case involving an exclusivity clause in real estate should award injunctions.

iv.Only when damages are difficult to estimate and the injunction is a one-shot remedy requiring no continuing judicial involvement.

d.Stokes v Moore—clause in employment contracted stated if terminated for any reason,

D could not engage in similar work in same city for one year.

i.Injunction as a liquidated damage is not necessarily enforceable.

e.Van Wagner Advertising v S & M Enterprises—breach in contract containing billboard

at a prime location.

i.No injunctions because P has adequate remedy of damages.

ii.Injunctions awarded when

1.Expectation damages are uncertain

2.Performance is Unique (not fungible)

a.Uniqueness Test: performance is one of a kind or has no

established market value.

i.No injunction for creative performances (can?t order

Pavarotti to sing)

ii.No injunction if continued judicial involvement is

necessary

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/2211432641.html,Clede Gas v Amoco Oil—Amaco breached contract involving the delivery of gas to

Laclede for distribution in a residential area.

i.Court awards specific performance because Laclede?s contract with Amaco is

long term 10 years with a specific date of termination and Lacl ede?s contracts

with other suppliers will soon end.

1.Damages uncertain because we don?t know who they will be buying

propane from in the future.

2.Not unique but not readily available on the market right then. (no

established market value)

g.Weathersby v Gore—D refused to sell cotton at contract price. Market Price was 5

cents more than contract price at time of breach. By the time P brought suit, cotton was

50 cents above contract price.

i. Damages were to be valued at the price of cotton at the time of the breach (5

cents more).

ii.Damages certain

h.Contracts for the sale of land

i.Specific performance often awarded for breach

1.Difficulty in determining market value

2.Real Estate usually unique

ii.Mutuality of remedy no longer a good argument for specific performance

i.Employment Contracts

i.Not specifically enforced because courts believe it is unwise to attempt to

extract from an unwilling party a performance involving personal relations. The Reliance and Restitution Measures

I.Reliance Damages in a Bargain Context

a.Security Stove v American RYS. Express—Delivery Company failed to deliver all parts

to a convention to show and not to sell the item.

i.Expectation damage are uncertain because stove not for sale.

ii.P collected for travel expenses to convention

iii.These are not quite reliance damages because P collected on expenditures before the promise was made. (Quasi-Reliance)

1.Put P where he would have been had the promise not been made

b.Anglia television LTD v Reed—Actor breached contract to star in TV movie. P sues

for reliance damages.

i.Actor must have foreseen the expenses a movie production company would

incur in relying upon D?s performance.

ii.Reliance damages awarded. (again, quasi-reliance here)

iii.Uncertainty is the justification: when you can?t prove lost profits, sometimes

you get quasi-reliance damages.

c.Beefy Trail v Beefy King—Expectation damages difficult to determine but reliance

damages discernable. Reliance damages awarded.

i.Reliance damages awarded based on the amount of money P …bet? on gaining a

profit.

d.L. Albert & Son v Armstrong Rubber—P may recover reliance performance minus the

amount D can show P would have lost had the contract been performed. (losing K

example)

e.Westside Galvanizing Services v Georgia-Pacific—GP building new facility at paper

mill contracts with SouthEastern to furnish steel. Westside contracted with southeastern

to galvanize steel before it was shipped. Westside was to ship galvanized steel directly

to GP but was to send invoices to Southeastern for payment.

i.Southeastern defaulted on both contracts. Westside stopped shipping, but GP

persuaded WS to ship steel indicating that GP would make sure they were paid

(Promise).

ii.WS was not paid and sued GP for the amount that was owed by SE.

iii.Court held that WS could sue GP but only for its reliance damages measured by the value of shipments made after GP?s promise to WS, and not for all of SE?s

obligation to WS

iv.Awarded under the theory of detrimental reliance

1.Measured by the extent of promisee?s reliance and not the terms of the

promise.

II.The Restitution Measure

a.Restitutionary Damages for Breach of Contract

i.Osteen v Johnson—P-county singer paid D $2,500 to promote her by recording

two albums, each consisting of two songs, and send the albums, one at a time, to

DJs around the country. P sent the first out album, it received substantial radio

play, but failed to send the second album. .

1.Material Breach is one that goes to the essence of the contract.

2.Court rules that failure to press and send out the second album

constituted a material breach on part of D.

3. D did perform part but not all of his duties and damages should be

awarded accordingly—conferred benefit.

a.Trial court will determine the reasonable value of the services D

already rendered on P?s behalf and restore to P the remaining

amount.

ii.Restatement Second of Contracts, 370

1.In order to recover restitution damages, a benefit must be conferred.

a.For example, there can be no restitution damages in a situation

where A contracts B to make a machine for 100 and breaches

after B has spent 40 making machine so far.

b.No restitution for B, but probably expectation (cost incurred more

expected profit, or K price less amount saved by not completing).

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/2211432641.html, v Algernon Blair—D-Blair contracted a subcontractor-Coastal Steel to

perform steel erection. D failed to pay P for crane rental, which constituted a

breach of contract. D terminated performance and seeks quantum meriut

(restitution) for work completed.

1.P conferred benefit on D by partially completing steel erection and

therefore is entitled to recover the value of services rendered.

2.Measure of recovery for restitution is the reasonable value of

performance

a.Recovery is undiminished by any loss which would have been

incurred by complete performance.

b.Even in losing K, if opposing party breaches before substantial

performance, P can collect for the benefit conferred.

iv.Oliver v Campbell—D hired P-attorney for counsel in divorce proceedings until final judgment for $850. Just before proceedings ended, D discharged P. At the

time of discharge P was paid $550, but claims to have serviced D in the amount

of $5000.

1.One who is unlawfully discharged may sue for restitution damages and

recover for the value of services performed, even if the value of services

performed exceeds the K price.

2.Here, court rules that P substantially performed duties at the time of

breach and therefore is only able to recover expectation damages ($300).

v.G. Palmer, The Law of Restitution

1.When P has fully performed his obligations under K, restitution of the

value of P?s performance is regularly denied. Rather, P can only recover

on the agreed price.

2.Restitution of value of performance is available only upon partial

performance.

vi.Restitutionary damages are based on the benefit conferred, while reliance

damages are based on the costs incurred.

vii.Expectation as a Cap on Reliance Damages

1. A promisee who has entered into a losing K under, which he has

conferred benefit on promisor who breaches, can recover market value of

benefit even if that value exceeds the K price.

2.Under reliance damages, expectancy works as a cap because one cannot

rely on a value more than they expect, even in a losing K.

a.Reliance refers to relying on the terms of the K.

b.Restitution in Favor of a Plaintiff in Default

i.Kutzin v Pirnie—D put down a deposit of $36,000 on a house costing $365,000.

1.D?s loss was less than deposit price, therefore retaining deposit works as

a penalty.

2.If a party fails to perform, but has conferred benefit, the party in breach

is entitled to restitution for the benefit conferred in excess of the loss that

he caused by his own breach.

3.Court rules that D is entitled to restitution for the deposit less the

difference between house at K price and house at price at which the

house actually sold.

4.Court specifies that this rule is applied to K without a liquidated damages

clause.

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/2211432641.html, Palmer Construction v Cal State Electric—If the breaching party has

conferred benefit rather than a detriment, it would unjustly enrich the innocent

party and unduly punish the breaching party if the latter received nothing for its

services.

1.Breaching party can not recover more than the K price, however. To

allow this would give an incentive to breach.

iii.Vines v Orchard Hills—The burden is on the breaching party to show that the party with benefit conferred was in fact unjustly enriched.

III.Breach and Response

a.The Order of Performance

i.Restatement Second

1.233: If performance can be rendered at one time it is due at one time

(unless otherwise stated in K)

2.234: If performance can be rendered simultaneously, they are due

simultaneously (unless otherwise stated in K)

ii.Note on Concurrent Conditions

1.The party bringing suit has the burden of proving the other party was in

default and not himself.

2.Rule: where performances are to be simultaneous, neither can recover

unless something has been done to put the other in default.

3.Concurrent Conditions: where the performances of the promises in K are

to be concurrent, then it is normally a condition that one party?s

performance is necessary to put the other in default.

b.Material Breach: Failure of Performance By One Party as an Excuse for

Nonperformance by the Other

i.K&G Constr. V Harris—P-contractor hires D-subcontractor to do earthmoving

work on site. Bulldozer of D damaged P?s house and D refused to pay

installment payment.

1.Issue is whether P had a right to refuse the progress

2.Court rules that D?s failure to perform in a workmanlike manner

(damaging house) constituted a material breach.

3.If owner fails to make progress payments for failure to substantially

perform, the contractor (subcontractor in this case) is not justified in

abandoning work.

4.Such abandonment will itself be a breach of K.

5.Total breach and partial breach

a.Contractor in this case could have called off work at the initial

breach, which would have constituted a total breach.

b.Contractor chose to treat breach as a partial breach by permitting

the subcontractor to proceed with work.

6.P was not at fault and D breached the K a second time when he

terminated performance.

7.P awarded the loss of hiring a second sub-contractor to complete the

work

ii. E. Allen Farnsworth, Contracts

1. A contract is said to be divisible if performances exchanged can be

divided into corresponding pairs of part performances in such a way that

a court will treat the parts of each pair as if the parties agreed they were

equivalents

2.Two requirements

a.Parties performances can be apportioned into corresponding pairs

b.The parts of each pair are agreed equivalents

3. A divisible contract isolates the parts of the K so that if one part is

breached, it is not necessarily deemed that the K is breached in its

entirety.

iii.Walker and Co. v Harris—P-lessor agrees to construct, install and maintain a sign for D to be paid in monthly installments. Title to the sign reverts to lessee

upon the expiration of the agreement.

1.Sign defaced by tomato, rust, and cobwebs and D doesn?t pa y monthly

installments claiming that P breached K by failing to maintain the sign

after repeated requests to do so.

2.Court warns that if a party breaches K by his own determination that the

opposing party breached, he better be sure the opposing party breached.

a.If his own breach was unwarranted, the repudiator himself will be

guilty of material breach.

3.Court finds that P did not breach contract and that D?s subsequent breach

was material.

4.Question remains as to whether K for the sign was a sale or a lease.

Court awards P the acceleration of the “rentals” due, which was the cash

price of the sign.

iv.Zula Steel v A&M Gregos—P-Subcontractor left job after D-prime contractor failed to make progress payments

XYWJ型内燃铲运机说明书

第一章概述 XYWJ-1B型地下内燃铲运机主要用于金属类矿山井下，以铲装、运输爆破后的松散物料为主，也可用于铁路、公路以及隧道工程等，特别适用于工作条件恶劣，作业现场狭窄、低矮以及泥泞的作业面。本机动力系统采用四缸BF 4L 2011柴油机驱动。液控变量泵—变量马达—传动齿轮箱—前后桥—四个胶轮传动。采用了回转轴承联接后机架摆动。工作系统采用先导液控操作，使铲运机操作更加简单、高效、低故障率。紧急停车制动采用了摩擦片制动器，弹簧制动，液压解除制动，突然断电立即制动，安全可靠。 产品执行标准：JB/T5500-2004地下铲运机 1.1 整机主要配置 1.1.1发动机 制造厂德国道依茨（DEUTZ）公司 型号BF4L2011 额定功率47.5KW 转速2300r/min 1.1.2 液压泵 制造厂斯洛伐克3COM-GTN公司 型号PV22 1.1.3 液压马达 制造厂斯洛伐克3COM-GTN公司 型号MV23 1.1.4 变速箱 制造厂烟台兴业机械设备有限公司 型号XYWJD-1（借用） 1.1.5 驱动桥 制造厂烟台兴业机械设备有限公司 型号XYPC15

1.1.6 双联泵 制造厂合肥长源液压件有限公司 型号CBQT-F540/F410-AFH 1.1.7 多路换向阀 制造厂四川长江液压件有限责任公司 型号ZL20E-2（04U） 1.1.8 制动系统 组成停车制动 说明停车制动采用全封闭液压湿式多盘制动1.1.9 液压系统 组成工作系统行驶系统转向系统制动系统1.1.10 电器系统（电器原理图见图16） 工作电压24V 1.2 整机主要技术性能和参数 1 额定斗容1m3 2 额定载重量2t 3 最大铲取力48kN 4 最大牵引力56kN 5 行驶速度0-10km/h 6 最大爬坡能力≥20°（注意：铲运机作业坡度不应大于10°） 7 最大卸载高度1050mm 8 最小卸载距离860 mm 9 工作装置动作时间11s 10 最小转弯半径3990mm（铲斗外侧）2540mm（后轮内侧） 11 最大转向角±38° 12 最小离地间隙200mm 13 后机架摆动角±8°

道依茨912风冷柴油机使用说明书

第一章：柴油机的技术特征 一、柴油机型号 F6L912/W/913.4102F型风冷柴油机根据配套机械情况有以下几种基本变型产品: 1、F6L912G1.G2型:用于液压挖掘机。 2、F6L912G3型:用于液压挖掘机。 3、F6L912Q型:用于载货汽车。 4、F6L912W型:用于井下作业铲运机。 5、F6L913L型:用于谷物联合收割机。 6、F6L913Q型:用于载货汽车。 7、4102FQ型:用于3t轻型载货汽车．中型旅游车。 二、柴油机技术参数 表1：柴油机型号及性能参数

三、柴油机主要技术数据 (一)在额定功率及额定转速下的各种温度 １、机油温度:100---120℃ ２、排气温度(表2) 表2：各种机型排气温度 （二）机油压力范围 １、额定转速下主油道内压力0.4----0.5MPa ２、在最低稳定转速下主油道内压力≥0.05MPa （三）配气相位（以曲轴转角计） １、进气门 开启始点:上止点前32o 关闭终点:下止点后60o ２、排气门 开启始点:下止点前70o

关闭终点:上止点后32o 进、排气门冷态间隙:0.15mm （四）供油提前角（以曲轴转角计）（表３) 表3：供油提前角 （五）活塞顶余隙高度:1.2mm，用铅丝测量。 （六）机油容量（表4) 表4：各种机型机油容量 （七）主要螺栓的拧紧力矩 高强度螺栓的拧紧角度特别重要,为了获得所需角度,只要按照与一座钟的时针.分针所形成的相同的角度,来转动搬手的板杆,见图1。 (1)安装前用机油蘸湿螺纹及痤面。 (2)用套筒板手而不加扳杆,或用普通扳手及梅花扳手而不用扳杆,拧入螺栓直至将它们垂直地装牢,见图2。 (3)用两只手抓住扳杆,预紧螺栓,见图3。 (4)按照图4所示方式拧紧螺栓,分几步拧紧,使其符合规定的拧紧角度。

TORO301铲运机维护手册

TORO 301维护手册

目录 页数概述 维修和润滑 安全预防 润滑 注油容积 维护项目 注意事项 工作50小时后对维护保养 维护和润滑项目 油压测试

概述 在操作机器以前先阅读安全操作与维修手册！ 这一点对于那些偶尔在TORO铲运机上 工作的人尤为重要。 严格遵守操作规程！ 工作人员不得留松散长发、不得穿宽大服装更不得 戴珠宝耳环以免受伤。 必须穿着工作服和其它劳保服装。 不得对设备随意改造，以免影响设备的安全性能。 在对设备进行改造、调整安全装置和阀以及焊接车架前， 向供应商或制造商咨询。 零件必须与制造商的技术规范对应， 只有原装零件才被担保。 报告失火位置并使用灭火器 为了进行维护检测，应使用工作场地的设备使工作顺利 完成。 Toro铲运机上的每一个维护和修理工作只能按照说明书 规定由专职人员完成。 电器部件必须由电工维修、液压部件必须由有经验的专 职人员维修。 在进行维护、调整和检测时，仔细检查零件，必要时按 照说明书的要求进行更换。 在铲运机行走时或发动机工作是不得进行清洗、调整、 修理或作业。

维护和润滑 概述 Toro301铲运机是按照矿山的艰难条件和要求来设计的。按照保养周期的要求经常进行维护确保设备无故障地正常和经济的工作是非常重要的。当按照保养周期的要求经常进行维护以后，你会很容易地发现，在设备隐患还未出现时已经被修理好了。这就是以小的维护成本，将故障降到最低限度。 手册的一下章节指出了保养位置和周期，并强烈建议使用者按照道依茨（DEUTZ）柴油机维护手册进行有关的保养。 电器系统的防护 电焊前，发电机和主开关电缆必须断开，如果配有自动润滑中心及其它电器设备（如遥控器等）都必须断开。 在用水、蒸汽喷头和其它清洗设备进行清洗前，盖好发电机、接线盒及电器柜。 清洗后拿开盖。 安全注意事项 为保养工作留下足够的安全空间，在保养和修理期间一定要保证柴油机不会被突然地起动。在进行预防性维护前通知所有工作人员。 无论何时需要在铰接点处工作时，都要在前后车架之间装上安全锁止棒以防突然转向。在以举起的大臂下工作前先要： 1、倒空铲斗； 2、对大臂进行牢固支撑； 3、关闭发动机。 按照说明书的要求，遵守“开”和“关”机的程序。 保持手柄和踏板干净。 所有维护工作完成后，拧紧所有紧固件。马上装好所有已经拆卸的安全装置。 安照安全和环保的要求处置所有垃圾和被更换元件。

850使用说明书

1机械部分 1.1主要用途和适用范围 高速立式加工中心（V850）是配有CNC系统的三轴联动的加工中心。 该机床可实现铣削、镗孔、扩孔、铰孔、钻孔等多工序的自动工作循环；可精确、高效地完成平面内各种复杂曲线的凸轮、样板、压模、弧形槽等零件的自动加工。本机床是钻、铣、镗多功能为一体的金属加工机床。 本机床控制部分采用SIEMENS802D交流伺服数控系统或三菱E60S交流伺服数控系统。运动轴均采用精度较高有预紧力的零间隙滚珠丝杆，机床输出力矩大，工作稳定可靠，机床主轴转速高，运动轴除自动外还可手动操作。 本机床基本上能满足百分之八十左右零件的铣削、钻削要求。机床适用性广泛，对各种较复杂曲线的凸轮、模板、模具、工具和刀具等零件的半精加工和精加工尤为适宜。 本机床三轴联动，并可控制第四轴，含有RS232接口，可与计算机联接加工复杂工件。 本机床适用于工业机械制造、仪器仪表、纺织、轻工等行业。 1.2机床的基本参数 工作台面积（长×宽）mm 1025mm×525mm 刀库 BT40-16 主轴锥度 ISO.40（BT40） 工作台纵向行程 800mm 工作台横向行程 500mm 工作台垂向行程 500mm 主轴转速范围 200-8000rpm 主轴最高转速 10000rpm X、Y、Z快速移动速度 10000mm/min X、Y、Z进给速度 10-3000mm/min T型槽宽×槽数（mm） 18×3 主电机功率 7.5kW

进给电机 X、Z向1.5KW(伺服)，Y向2KW(伺服) 最小设定单位 0.005/0.001mm 定位精度 0.01mm 重复定位精度± 0.005mm 工作气压 0.4-0.6MPa 机床最大承载重量 400kg 机床外形尺寸（长×宽×高） 3060mm×1900mm×2200mm 机床重量 4200kg 1.3高速雕刻基本参数（选件） 高速电主轴转速范围：3000-25000r/min 功率： 3KW 安装夹头 ER20 1.4激光切割、雕刻基本参数（选件） 1.5.1主轴传动说明 主轴运动由主轴伺服电机直接由主轴伺服驱动控制电机轴，通过同步带轮驱动主轴旋转，使传速从200-10000rev/min范围内无级调速。 1.5.2进给运动及说明 进给运动分为X轴（纵向）、Y轴（横向）、Z轴（垂直）三向。 X、Y、Z三个方向进给均采用伺服电机，通过弹性联轴器驱动丝杆带动移动部件，完成各个方向进给运动.

TORO400E电动铲运机操作手册

（译文仅供参考，如有异议，以原文为准）

此页空白

操作手册

? SANDVIK TAMROCK 公司，TORO铲运机分部 11/2004

前言 感谢您选购了TORO铲运机。 本手册有助于您熟悉TORO铲运机及其预期的用途。您将要使用的TORO 400 E 铲运机是电动的胶轮铲运机，外形低矮，适于井下采矿使用。 每一位司机在操作之前都应通晓此铲运机，并完全掌握操作手册、保养手册和通用安全规程的内容。本手册包含了关于部件、仪表和控制装置安全使用的资料。保养手册中对定期保养做了详细说明。只有经过正规培训的人员才允许操作此铲运机。 在对TORO铲运机的不断研究和开发过程中，有可能已对铲运机做了某些改动，本手册中没有包含关于这方面的内容。 如果铲运机安装了如遥控装置那样的选装设备，您应当熟悉选装设备的单独说明书，有关操作使用方法在说明书中有详细说明。 所有负责TORO 400E工作的人员，包括对TORO 400E进行操作、运 输、维修的人员，都必须阅读和使用本手册。 驾驶室内必须固定放有此手册，以备TORO 铲运机的操作人员随时使用。 始终要遵守国家有关事故预防和环境保护的强制性法规。此外还必须遵守普遍公认的有关安全和职业工作方面的技术法规。 需要保养和修理时，建议您与离得最近的Sandvik Tamrock授权服务部门联系。我们的维修人员技术熟练，经验丰富，备有专用工具，能完成最需要的保养和修理任务。 通过正确使用并按照保养手册的内容去做，可以指望您的铲运机能得到高度利用并延长使用寿命。

前言 (3) 合格声明 (5) 1. 铲运机介绍 (6) 1.1. 预期的用途 (6) 1.2. 推荐的作业条件 (6) 1.3. 技术详情 (7) 1.3.1. 噪声强度和噪声辐射 (7) 1.3.2. 型号牌 (7) 2. 安全说明 (8) 2.1. 设备上的警告标牌 (8) 2.2. 伤害危险的警告 (8) 2.3. 损坏设备或器材的警告 (8) 2.4. 阅读使用手册或保养手册 (8) 2.5. 操作安全规程 (9) 2.6. 使用或保养工作中的主要危险 (10) 2.7. 不允许铲运机作业的方式和条件 (11) 2.8. 警告标志 (12) 2.9. 防火 (14) 2.10.紧急停机和停机装置 (16) 2.11.紧急出口 (17) 2.12.锁定装置 (17) 3.13. 安全设备 (20) 3. 操作说明 (21) 3.1. 仪表和控制装置 (21) 3.2. 符号牌和安全注意事项 (32) 3.3. 起动电动机之前的常规检查 (33) 3.4. 进入驾驶室和起动电动机 (35) 3.5. 行驶之前的常规检查 (38) 3.6. 行驶 (40) 3.6.1.坡度 (40) 3.6.2.司机的视界 (41) 3.6.3.行驶操作 (42) 3.6.4.制动 (43) 3.7. 停车和停止电动机 (44) 3.8. 寒冷气候下作业 (45) 3.9. 牵引 (46) 3.10.运输铲运机 (48) 3.11.存放条件说明 (49) 3.12.起吊方法和起吊点 (50) 4. 装载、搬运和卸载 (51) 4.1. 作业期间的危险区域 (51) 4.2. 装载 (51) 4.3. 搬运 (54) 4.4. 卸载 (56) 4.5. 遥控行驶（选装） (56) 5. 故障诊断 (58) 6. 技术规格 (60)

圆盘给料机使用说明书

共16页第1页1．用途与结构特点： 圆盘给料机是运输机械的一种附属设备，作为运输机械上精确而均匀地给料之用。给料粒度0～150mm，用它运输比重大的物料最为适合。用此一般多用于选矿、烧结和冶炼等场合中。 圆盘给料机结构简单可靠，采用柱销联轴器和浮动盘联轴器，分别联结电机与减速机，和减速机与给料机本体的传动轴。敞开型由一对敞开传动的圆锥齿轮组成；封闭型则是把一对圆锥齿轮装在箱体中而已。 2．设备整体布置：参见我公司提供的设备基础图。 3．主要技术参数： 座式敞开型圆盘给料机 圆盘直径：800mm 1000 mm 1600 mm 2000 mm 座式封闭型圆盘给料机 头尾轮中心距：5000～15000 mm 输送量：150～950t/h 链速：0.05m～0.095m/s(50HZ时) 安装倾角：α=0o～25o 电机型号：YVPE型变频调速电机 功率15～75KW 变频范围5～100HZ 减速机型号：KDAB型低速输出为轴装式，驱动装置为悬挂式与机身相连，不需另设驱动基础。 驱动装置：安装可分为左式或右式，可由用户自行选择。 为满足用户使用，我们可以按用户所需特殊需要设计制造各类重型板式给料机。 4．工作原理： 重型板式给料机是由电机驱动，通过高速轴联轴器、减速器、锁紧盘最终传给主轴装置。主动链轮带动牵引链条及固定在上面的负荷链板作直线运动，从而达到输送物料的目的。 5．设备的主要结构： 本重型板式给料机由驱动装置、主轴装置、机架、下托辊、运行机构、尾部张紧装置、及承重辊等主要部件组成。 5.1驱动装置： 驱动装置由电机、高速轴联轴器、减速机、锁紧盘、驱动

装置底座的组成,见图(1)。

工程机械图片说明详细分类 (1)

工程机械 1、挖掘机械 2、铲土运输机械 3、工程起重机械 4、机动工业车辆 5、压实机械 6、路面机械 7、桩工机械 8、混凝土机械 9、钢筋加工机械 10、装修机械 11-12、凿岩机械与气动工具 13、工程机械专用零部件 14、其它专用工程机械 1、挖掘机械 挖掘机械产品类组划分表 类组产品名称 1.挖掘机械（1）单斗挖掘机1）履带式机械单斗挖掘机 2）履带式电动单斗挖掘机 3）履带式液压单斗挖掘机 4）轮胎式机械单斗挖掘机

5）轮胎式液压单斗挖掘机 6）轮胎式电动单斗挖掘机 7）汽车式单斗挖掘机 8）步履式机械单斗挖掘机 9）步履式液压单斗挖掘机（2）多斗挖掘机10）机械轮斗挖掘机 11）液压轮斗挖掘机 12）电动轮斗挖掘机 13）机械链斗挖掘机 14）液压链斗挖掘机 15）电动链斗挖掘机（3）多斗挖沟机16）机械轮斗挖沟机 17）液压轮斗挖沟机 18）电动轮斗挖沟机 19）机械链斗挖沟机 20）液压链斗挖沟机 21）电动链斗挖沟机（4）斗轮挖掘机22）机械斗轮挖掘机 23）液压斗轮挖掘机 24）电动斗轮挖掘机（5）挖掘装载机25）挖掘装载机

（6）滚切挖掘机26）滚切挖掘机 （7）铣切挖掘机27）铣切挖掘机 （8）掘进机28）盾构掘进机 29）顶管掘进机 30）隧道掘进机 31）涵洞掘进机 （9）特殊用途挖掘机32）水陆两用挖掘机 33）隧道挖掘机 34）湿地挖掘机 35）船用挖掘机 挖掘机在矿山特别是露天矿山使用较多，多数为大型、重型、履带式正铲，少数用反铲。柴油和电动的都有，原来多用机械式，现在开始使用液压式。液压铲国内生产厂家四川邦立，机械铲有太原矿山机器厂、中钢衡重、抚挖等。中小型挖掘机多为柴油、液压反铲，国内生产厂家重多。 柴油液压履带正铲挖掘机 柴油液压履带反铲挖掘机 电动液压履带正铲挖掘机 电动机械履带正铲挖掘机 柴油液压轮胎反铲挖掘机 工程用小型履带反铲挖掘机 微型挖掘机（柴油液压履带反铲） 斗轮挖掘机 链斗式挖掘机 多斗挖掘机

加工中心cnc850使用说明书

加工中心CNC850说明书 1机械部分 1.1主要用途和适用范围 高速立式加工中心（V850）是配有CNC系统的三轴联动的加工中心。 该机床可实现铣削、镗孔、扩孔、铰孔、钻孔等多工序的自动工作循环；可精确、高效地完成平面内各种复杂曲线的凸轮、样板、压模、弧形槽等零件的自动加工。本机床是钻、铣、镗多功能为一体的金属加工机床。 本机床控制部分采用SIEMENS802D交流伺服数控系统或三菱E60S交流伺服数控系统。运动轴均采用精度较高有预紧力的零间隙滚珠丝杆，机床输出力矩大，工作稳定可靠，机床主轴转速高，运动轴除自动外还可手动操作。 本机床基本上能满足百分之八十左右零件的铣削、钻削要求。机床适用性广泛，对各种较复杂曲线的凸轮、模板、模具、工具和刀具等零件的半精加工和精加工尤为适宜。 本机床三轴联动，并可控制第四轴，含有RS232接口，可与计算机联接加工复杂工件。 本机床适用于工业机械制造、仪器仪表、纺织、轻工等行业。 1.2机床的基本参数 单机功率 18KW 总功率 36KW 工作台面积（长×宽）mm 1025mm×525mm 刀库 BT40-16 主轴锥度 ISO.40（BT40） 工作台纵向行程 800mm 工作台横向行程 500mm 工作台垂向行程 500mm 主轴转速范围 200-8000rpm 主轴最高转速 10000rpm

X 、Y 、Z 快速移动速度 10000mm/min X 、Y 、Z 进给速度 10-3000mm/min T 型槽宽×槽数（mm ） 18×3 主电机功率 7.5kW 进给电机 X 、Z 向1.5KW(伺服)，Y 向2KW(伺服) 最小设定单位 0.005/0.001mm 定位精度 0.01mm 重复定位精度 ± 0.005mm 工作气压 0.4-0.6MPa 机床最大承载重量 400kg 机床外形尺寸（长×宽×高） 3060mm ×1900mm ×2200mm 机床重量 4200kg 1. 3高速雕刻基本参数（选件） 高速电主轴 转速范围：3000-25000r/min 功率： 3KW 安装夹头 ER20 1.4激光切割、雕刻基本参数（选件） 1.5机床的传动系统 1.5.1主轴传动说明 主轴运动由主轴伺服电机直接由主轴伺服驱动控制电机轴，通过同步带轮驱动主轴旋转，使传速从200-10000rev/min 范围内无级调速。 激光部分技术指标 激光器：CO2激光器 激光功率：100W （可选） 工件最大尺寸：300×650mm 切割速度：0.1-6000mm/min 快速移动速度：8mm/min 位置精度：+/- 0.05mm/m 重复定位精度：+/- 0.04mm CNC 最小设定单位：0.005MM 三轴控制：X 、Y 联动，Z 轴随动 激光部分：支架卡1.6m 宽0.4m 功率100±20W 切缝0.5～1mm 上窄下宽 冷确水泵100W 冷却激光管部分 镜片：反射镜、扩束镜、聚焦镜 特性CO2激光 波长10.6um 工件冷却，可加压缩空气或高压氮气，气体保护。

卡特彼勒机械说明书之623H提升式铲运机

623H Wheel Tractor-Scraper Engine Scraper Bowl Tractor Cat? C13 ACERT? Heaped Capacity 17.6 m3 23 yd3 Max. Power 304 kW 407 hp Rated Load 25 038 kg 55,200 lb

623H Features Economical Hauling System The wheel tractor-scraper, with its ability to load quickly, haul at high speeds and dump on the go, has the potential to be the most profitable hauling system on the job site. This efficiency can result in fewer machines on the job, reduced operating costs and jobs delivered in a shorter period of time. Power Train Caterpillar designed and manufactured power train components deliver the power necessary for fast loading and quick hauls. Operator Station Single joystick control of implements, adjustable arm rests, seat, steering column and room to maneuver all reduce fatigue and increase operator comfort and productivity throughout the shift. Cushion Hitch The cushion hitch is a Caterpillar proven system for protecting components of the hitch and improving ride quality, dampening loads that might otherwise be carried through the frame to the operator. Cushion hitch offers operators a more comfortable haul portion of the work cycle. Durability Cat wheel tractor-scrapers have a history of robust structural design, tested and validated to last in the most rugged loading and hauling conditions. Contents Operator’s Station (3) Operator Comfort (4) Power Train – Engine (5) Power Train – Transmission (6) Structures (7) Scraper Bowl (8) Elevator (9) Integrated Technologies (10) Complete Customer Support (11) Safety (12) 623H Wheel Tractor-Scraper Specifi cations (13) 623H Standard Equipment (18) 623H Optional Equipment .................................19 Quick loading, high travel speeds and the ability to load and dump on the run yield fast cycle times, allowing Cat Wheel Tractor-Scrapers to consistently deliver high productivity at the lowest cost per ton.

ADCY-2A维修使用说明书_RT20000_090403

北京安期生技术有限公司

前言 为了能使用户对ADCY－2A地下电动铲运机的使用、保养和管理等方面有所了解，本书中简要地介绍了ADCY－2A地下电动铲运机的性能、结构原理和保养调整等方面的内容。仅供使用本型号铲运机的驾驶员、维修人员和技术管理人员参考。 由于本产品的结构性能不断的提高和改进，本书的内容可能与今后改进的产品有所差别，由于诸多原因限制，我们无法及时通知各用户，希望用户谅解。 为了更好地为用户服务，希望用户在使用铲运机的过程中将你们发现的问题及改进的意见及时地反馈给我们，我们将非常感谢！ 书中若有错误或不妥之处，敬请各用户批评指导。 编者：北京安期生技术有限公司 日期：二零零六年七月

目录 第一章 概述 (1) 1.1 整机主要配置 1.2 整机主要性能参数 1.3 驾驶室内功能元件 第二章 铲运机的操作 (12) 2.1 安全规程 2.2 开车前的检查与保养 2.3 开车前的检查项目 2.4 使用后的检查维护工作 2.5 铲运机的起动与运行 2.6 铲运机的停机 2.7 电动机的使用与维护 2.8 铲运机的作业操作 2.9 铲运机的停放 第三章 主要部件的结构与保养 (17) 3.1 传动系统 3.1.1驱动桥 3.1.2传动轴 3.1.3轮胎、轮辋 3.2 液压系统 3.2.1液压系统的组成 3.2.2液压系统的用油 3.2.3液压油箱 3.2.4液压油的更换 3.2.5液压系统的排气 3.2.6液压系统故障分析及维护 3.3 电气系统

第四章铲运机的维护和保养 (25) 4.1 一般定期维护保养工作的步骤和方法 4.1.1清洗机器 4.1.2注润滑油 4.1.3防锈保护 4.1.4更换零件 4.1.5电路维护 4.1.6检查油位 4.1.7换油 4.1.8检查密封件和密封面 4.1.9检查锁紧元件 4.2 一般不定期维护和保养的项目 4.3 定期维护和保养列表

WJD-2说明书(09.10)

电动铲运机使用说明书 南昌凯马有限公司

目录 一前言 (1) 二主要技术参数与性能 (2) 三铲运机的操作及安全制度 (5) 四主要部件结构 (16) 五整机油品 (24) 六润滑及保养 (25) 七机器的起吊运输与存放 (31) 八铲运机各系统工作原理与故障分析、排除 (33) 九 WJD-2电器系统 (44) 附图 WJD-2液压原理图 WJD-2电器原理图

一、前言 为了使用户对2M3电动铲运机在使用、保养及管理等方面有概括的了解，特编辑本使用说明书。本说明书简要的叙述了2M3电动铲运机的性能参数、结构原理、使用方法、保养等方面的知识，仅供驾驶人员、保养维修人员及有关技术管理人员参考。其配套的动力机、液力变矩器、变速箱及前后桥的使用、维修、保养也有说明。 WJD-2电动铲运机采用了交流380伏电机驱动；电机功率75KW。这种铲运机是光面耐切割橡胶轮胎，前后桥同时驱动，中央铰接，前置铲斗前卸式装运设备，采用了液力机械传动，轮边行星减速及钳盘式制动等技术。WJD-2型电动铲运机有电缆缠绕同步收放装置。采用全液压转向器，结构紧凑，转向平稳，维修方便。 WJD-2型电动铲运机适合于所有普通2M3铲运机的工况，更适合于巷道窄小，车辆不能拐弯的地方作业。其主要特点： a.采用进口液力机械传动系统，发动机功率得到充分发挥，在一定范围内自动适应外界阻力变化，外界阻力剧烈变化对发动机无直接影响。 b.采用动力换档变速箱、比例式减压先导阀及液压转向器，操纵轻便安全，维修方便。 c.采用前后四轮驱动，防滑式差速器及光面耐切割轮胎，驱动力大，爬坡能力强，适应井下各种恶劣的地面状况，轮胎寿命长。 d.采用中央铰接式车架，转动灵活。 e.采用了全液压制动，结构简单，工作可靠。

地下铲运机使用说明书

地下铲运机使用说明书

铜冠机械股份有限公司制造 前言 为了能使用户对TCY-3HL铲运机的使用、保养和管理等方面有所了解，本书中简要地介绍了TCY-3HL铲运机性能、结构原理和维护保养方面的要求。仅供使用本型号铲运机的驾驶员、维修人员和技术管理人员参考。 由于本产品的结构性能不断的提高和改进，本书的内容可能与今后改进的产品有所差别，由于诸多原因限制，我公司可能无法随时通知各用户，希望用户谅解。

为了更好的为用户服务，希望用户在使用本书的过程中将你们发现的问题及改进的意见能及时反馈给我公司，我们将不胜感激。 书中若有错误或不妥之处敬请各用户批评指导。 目录 概述 (5) 主要尺寸 (5) 技术规格 (7)

转向 (9) 工作液压系统 (9) 制动液压系统 (10) 控制 (11) 仪表盘 (12) 操作盘 (13) 启动与停止........................................ .. (14) 传动 (15) 维护与润滑 (21) 安全注意事项 (22) 加油容量 (24) 特别注意事项 (25) 最初使用50小时后 (25) 保养与润滑规程 (26) 压力测 试 (35) 发动机的常见故障与排 除 (39) 液力变矩器的结构、功能及常见故障处理 (51)

电力换档变速箱的结构功能及常见故障的处 理 (54) 桥的故障与排除...................................... .. (57) 制动器的故障与排除...................................... (59) 液压系统故障与排除方法...................................... . (60)