Contracts

B. The friend did not reasonably believe that the owner intended to sell his mining business.

Question 2793 The owner of a mine and a wealthy friend were having lunch in a restaurant. The owner had operated the mine as a successful business for a number of years and planned to continue to do so indefinitely, but was always boasting to friends that he could sell the business for far more than its asset value. On this occasion, the owner stated to the friend that he would sell her his business for $15 million, even though its assets were only worth $10 million. The friend responded "If that's your best offer, I can't accept it." The owner then wrote on a napkin, "I, Owner, hereby offer to sell my mining business to Friend, for $15 million." The friend took the napkin, wrote, "I accept your offer," then signed her name and pocketed the napkin. Nothing more was said about the sale. The next day, the friend, upon learning that a valuable vein had been discovered in the mine that day, contacted the owner. The owner refused to transfer the mine to his friend. In a breach of contract action by the friend against the mine owner, which of the following is the owner's best defense to this action? Answers: A. The owner did not intend to sell his mining business. B. The friend did not reasonably believe that the owner intended to sell his mining business. C. The writing by the owner was not sufficiently definite to constitute an offer. D. The friend had rejected the owner's offer to sell his mining business for $15 million.

D. Correct Answer: $225,000, the amount that the developer would have had to pay for the portion of the paving job that was completed. You're using restitution here instead of expectancy damages because expectancy damages would be less than restitution because the company performed the work for below market value. We do this instead in this situation because a company would benefit from their breach if we used expectancy. Basically, we're trying to keep jerks in check.

Question 2375 A paving company entered into a contract with a real estate developer to repave a large parking lot in the developer's shopping center. Since the paving company wanted to establish a good reputation in the market, it discounted its price. The paving company expected to make $20,000 in profit on the contract. Midway through the project, the developer notified the paving company to cease work; the paving company immediately complied. At the time of the notice, the paving company had incurred costs of $200,000. The cost of hiring another contractor to perform the same work would have been $225,000. The paving work performed had increased the value of the shopping center by $100,000. The paving company filed a lawsuit against the developer. The fact finder determined that the developer's repudiation of the contract was without justification. What is the maximum amount of damages the paving company can be awarded? Answers: A. $100,000, the amount by which the value of the shopping center was increased. B. $200,000, the costs incurred by the paving company. C. $220,000, the paving company's expectancy damages. D. $225,000, the amount that the developer would have had to pay for the portion of the paving job that was completed.

D. The school, because of the perfect tender rule.

Question 2394 On behalf of an elementary school, the school's principal entered into a written contract to purchase shirts for the school's students for a total cost of $5,000. The name of the school was to be imprinted on the back of each shirt. After the seller had acquired the shirts but before they had been imprinted, the principal emailed the seller and requested, in good faith, that a picture of the school's mascot be imprinted on the front of the shirts at no additional cost. In a reply email, the seller agreed to the principal's request. When the shirts arrived at the school, only the school's name appeared on the back of each shirt; the school's mascot did not appear on the shirt. The principal rejected the shirts and refused to pay for them. The seller sued the school for breach of contract. Who will prevail? Answers: A. The seller, because the shirts were specially manufactured goods. B. The seller, because the seller did not receive consideration for the modification. C. The school, because the school was not a merchant. D. The school, because of the perfect tender rule.

D. No, because the contract between the mining company and the railroad protected the railroad from losses suffered by the mining company due to a late shipment.

Question 2790 A mining company contracted with a railroad to transport 10,000 tons of coal from the company's mines to a power company at a cost of $100,000. The railroad told the mining company that the coal would arrive at the power company on June 1st, but the contract contained a clause that the railroad would not be liable for any losses suffered by the mining company as a result of a late shipment. The railroad was aware that the mining company had contracted with the power company to deliver the coal on June 1st, and pursuant to standard industry custom, the price to be paid by the power company decreased by $1 per ton for each day that the coal was late. The shipment of coal did not reach the power company until June 10, and the railroad had no justification for the 10-day delay. Because of the delay, the mining company lost $100,000 in revenue from the sale. The mining company filed suit against the railroad for breach of contract, claiming $100,000 in damages. Is the mining company likely to succeed in its claim? Answers: A. Yes, because the damages that the mining company would suffer from the railroad's delay were known to the railroad prior to shipment of the coal. B. Yes, because consequential damages cannot be excluded by a merchant. C. No, because the claimed damages are disproportionate to the original contract price between the railroad and the mining company. D. No, because the contract between the mining company and the railroad protected the railroad from losses suffered by the mining company due to a late shipment.

A. Yes, because the auto manufacturer is entitled to recover the cost of acquiring substitute speakers.

Question 2791 An auto manufacturer contracted with a supplier to provide speakers for 10,000 vehicles at a total price of $600,000. Prior to the date fixed for delivery of the speakers, the supplier, without justification, informed the manufacturer that it could not supply the speakers. The manufacturer immediately sought quotes from other suppliers. The manufacturer received a quote from a second supplier, who had previously provided the manufacturer with speakers in a timely and satisfactory manner, to sell 10,000 speakers for $800,000. A short time later, the manufacturer received an offer from a third supplier, with whom the manufacturer had not previously worked: to supply the 10,000 speakers for $600,000. The manufacturer, reasonably concerned that the third supplier would be unable to provide the speakers in a timely and satisfactory manner, entered into a contract with the second supplier. Subsequently, the first supplier told the manufacturer that it would be able to supply the speakers by the original delivery date and, although not requested by the manufacturer, provided the manufacturer with adequate evidence that the speakers would be timely delivered. The manufacturer told the first supplier not to deliver the goods and instead acquired them from the second supplier. The auto manufacturer sued the first supplier for $200,000. Should the auto manufacturer prevail? Answers: A. Yes, because the auto manufacturer is entitled to recover the cost of acquiring substitute speakers. B. Yes, because the first supplier had repudiated its contractual obligation. C. No, because the auto manufacturer was required to mitigate its damages by accepting the third supplier's lower offer. D. No, because the first supplier withdrew its repudiation prior to the time for performance.

B. Yes, because the conduct of the novice manifested assent to the bargain.

Question 2796 A tennis instructor gives group lessons for adult beginners at a tennis court in a local park. A novice adult player showed up at the court to participate in the drills conducted by the instructor. The instructor gave the novice instruction on her tennis game for that day and several more days. The lessons cost $50 per hour. The novice refused to pay the instructor. In a breach of contract action to recover the lesson fees, will the instructor prevail? Answers: A. Yes, because the bargain, if expressly made, would have been supported by consideration. B. Yes, because the conduct of the novice manifested assent to the bargain. C. No, because the instructor's only recovery would be in quantum meruit. D. No, because there was no formal offer and acceptance.

D. Correct Answer: The store will prevail, because the store is not required to accept a non-conforming delivery.

Question 2798 A retail store that specialized in crystal figurines entered into a contract to purchase 100 crystal swans at a price of $50 each from the artisan who would design and make them. The store paid for the swans at the time that the contract was executed. The contract specified that the artisan would deliver the swans personally to the store. The artisan notified the store upon completion of the swans in conformity with the contract. Unfortunately, 10 of the swans were destroyed in transit. The store refused to accept the remaining 90 swans, even though the artisan offered to reduce the purchase price by $500. The store sued the artisan for the return of the $5,000 paid to the artisan. What will be the likely result? Answers: A. The artisan will recover the entire contract price, because risk of loss transferred to the store upon the artisan's notification to the store of the completion of the crystal swans. B. The artisan will prevail, but can only recover the contract price for the intact crystal swans. C. The store will prevail, because the contract is void due to the artisan's inability to deliver 100 swans. D. The store will prevail, because the store is not required to accept a non-conforming delivery.

D. Neither express warranty nor implied warranty of merchantability.

Question 3163 A new homeowner was shopping with a friend at an appliance store for a new refrigerator. The friend, having just purchased a new refrigerator herself, had done extensive research about the various brands and models of refrigerators. She recommended a particular brand and model based on her knowledge of the homeowner's needs. Although the store did not have that model in stock, the friend showed the homeowner a different model from the same manufacturer, pointing out that the recommended refrigerator was exactly like that model. Relying on her friend's advice, the homeowner ordered the recommended refrigerator. When the refrigerator was delivered, the homeowner discovered that the model she had ordered was considerably different from the model that her friend had shown her at the store and did not have several features the homeowner desired. Under which of the following warranties can the homeowner sue to recover from her friend? Answers: A. Express warranty only. B. Implied warranty of merchantability only. C. Both express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability. D. Neither express warranty nor implied warranty of merchantability.

C. Yes, because the wholesaler sold the land under duress.

Question 3170 A produce wholesaler owed a sizeable debt that was past due. The lender offered, in exchange for a small parcel of land owned by the wholesaler, to reduce the amount of the debt by an amount equal to half of the fair market value of the land; the wholesaler refused. In order to compel the wholesaler to sell the land, the lender threatened to sue the wholesaler for the outstanding amount of the debt and to immediately attach a major shipment of produce to the wholesaler's most important and newly acquired client, although the wholesaler had sufficient other assets that could be attached. The wholesaler, feeling he had no choice since he did not have the cash on hand to pay off the debt, sold the land to the lender. The wholesaler subsequently sued the lender to void the sale. Will the wholesaler be able to void the sale? Answers: A. No, because the lender's threat was economic. B. No, because the wholesaler owed the amount that the lender threatened to collect. C. Yes, because the wholesaler sold the land under duress. D. Yes, because the wholesaler had been threatened with litigation.

D. The mortgage was obtained through undue influence.

Question 3172 A borrower failed to make several payments due on a business loan. While the borrower was in the hospital recovering from a major operation, the lender, who was a family friend, approached the borrower's wife about additional security for the business loan. The lender intimated that, if some action was not taken with regard to the loan, the lender would have to file a civil action. Distraught over her husband's physical condition, the borrower's wife, at the lender's suggestion, granted the lender a mortgage on valuable property that she had recently inherited. The mortgaged property was to serve as additional security for the business loan. As a consequence of the mortgage, the lender did not reduce the outstanding amount of the business loan but did extend the time in which the borrower had to repay the loan. Of the following, which would be the best basis on which the borrower's wife can seek to avoid the mortgage? Answers: A. The borrower's wife granted the mortgage under duress. B. The borrower's wife lacked the capacity to enter into a contract. C. The lender did not give additional consideration for the mortgage. D. The mortgage was obtained through undue influence.

C. Yes, because the supplier failed to deliver the required amount of the metal on the delivery date.

Question 3174 A large manufacturer regularly purchased a rare earth metal from various sources in order to incorporate the metal into its products. The manufacturer entered into a contract to purchase a specific quantity of the processed metal from a supplier. The contract called for the metal to be delivered in 90 days, with payment due on delivery. Coincidentally, between the contract and the agreed-upon delivery date, the manufacturer purchased the metal from some of the sources that the supplier, itself, often turned to for the metal. As a consequence of these purchases, the supplier could only obtain half of the required quantity of the metal by the delivery date. If the supplier delivers half of the required quantity of the metal on the delivery date, will it have breached the contract? Answers: A. No, because the supplier delivered the metal that it could in good faith obtain. B. No, because the manufacturer's purchases of the metal were the cause of the supplier being unable to meet its contractual obligation. C. Yes, because the supplier failed to deliver the required amount of the metal on the delivery date. D. Yes, because merchants do not have the obligation to deal in good faith with one another.

D. No, because the father had been adjudicated incompetent.

Question 3177 A daughter successfully petitioned a court to have her father declared incompetent to manage his affairs and to have herself appointed as guardian of his property. Subsequently, the father ordered furniture totaling $3,500 from a local store. The store, unaware of the guardianship and not otherwise having a reason from the father's behavior to learn of his incompetency, delivered the furniture to the father's residence where he received and accepted it. The next day a flood destroyed the furniture before the daughter had the opportunity to contact the store. Is the store entitled to enforce the contract for the sale of the furniture? Answers: A. Yes, because the risk of loss had passed to the father, as buyer of the furniture, upon its delivery. B. Yes, because the store was unaware of the guardianship and the father's incompetency. C. No, because the daughter did not have the opportunity to contact the store. D. No, because the father had been adjudicated incompetent.

D. The retailer's acceptance did not mirror the customer's offer.

Question 3182 Completing an online form, a customer ordered a handmade colored glass ornament to hang in the window of her home. In a box labeled "Comments," the customer wrote, "red, please." Via email, the online retailer sent a notice acknowledging the order, but reserving the right to send an ornament in any color. The retailer shipped the customer a green ornament. Which of the following arguments would not support the customer's position that she does not have to pay for the ornament? Answers: A. The retailer shipped nonconforming goods. B. The customer did not separately agree to receive an ornament in any color. C. Because customer was not a merchant, the retailer's additional term in acknowledgment is not part of contract. D. The retailer's acceptance did not mirror the customer's offer.

B. Yes, because the dealer was a merchant. Remember: He's a merchant. Normally, if no consideration given, he would have no obligation to keep it open. Also watch out for 90 day limit!!

Question 3185 A customer visited several area car dealerships, looking for a family car. One local car dealer named a price for the car that the customer wanted, which the customer asked be put in writing. The dealer wrote down the car's unique vehicle identification number, the price, the date, and the statement, "Firm offer for 30 days from today's date, provided car is in stock." The dealer signed the document. Twenty-nine days later, the customer returned to the dealer. The dealer admitted that the car was still in stock, but told the customer that it would now cost $500 more. The customer replied that he was ready, willing and able to buy the car, but only at the lower price. Does the customer's statement constitute acceptance of the dealer's lower price for the car? Answers: A. Yes, because the customer was not a merchant. B. Yes, because the dealer was a merchant. C. No, because the offer was subject to a condition and was therefore not a firm offer. D. No, because the dealer withdrew the offer of a lower price before the customer accepted it.

B. $10,400 ((6,000 * $1) + (4,000 * $1.10)), because the supplier's firm offer was effective for only 45 days.

Question 3186 A retailer received a written firm offer signed by a supplier. The offer committed the supplier to providing the retailer with up to 10,000 tubes of toothpaste over the next 45 days at $1 a tube. Thirty days later, the supplier informed the retailer that the price per tube of toothpaste would be $1.10. The next day the retailer ordered 6,000 tubes of toothpaste from the supplier, which the supplier promptly shipped. Sixty days after the receipt of the offer, the retailer ordered another 4,000 tubes of toothpaste, which the supplier also promptly shipped. What price is the supplier permitted to charge the retailer for the toothpaste? Answers: A. $10,000 (10,000 * $1), because the supplier's firm offer was effective for 90 days regardless of its terms. B. $10,400 ((6,000 * $1) + (4,000 * $1.10)), because the supplier's firm offer was effective for only 45 days. C. $11,000 (10,000 * $1.10), because the firm offer rule does not apply where the buyer is a merchant. D. $11,000 (10,000 * $1.10), because the supplier informed the retailer that the price was increased to $1.10 before the retailer's placement of either order.

C. Correct Answer: Yes, because furnace failed to heat the building.

Question 3187 A contractor purchased a furnace from a distributor of heating systems, after the distributor recommended the furnace based on the contractor's stated needs. The bill of sale between the distributor and the contractor stated, "All warranties, express or implied, are hereby disclaimed." The contractor installed the furnace in an office building. Due to a manufacturing defect, the furnace failed to heat the building as it should have. The contractor was sued by the owner of the office building. Can the contractor assert a claim against the distributor for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability? Answers: A. No, because there is no implied warranty of merchantability for sales between merchants. B. No, because the distributor disclaimed this warranty. C. Yes, because furnace failed to heat the building. D. Yes, because the contractor relied on the distributor's judgment.

A. No, because the father's promise was made orally.

Question 3191 An adult daughter called a local restaurant to place a large delivery order. The restaurant generally requires a credit card for all delivery orders, but the daughter's father, who is a regular at the restaurant and happened to be there when the daughter placed the order, told the clerk that, in the event the daughter failed to pay for the food, he would do so. The restaurant delivered the order to the daughter, who, having decided to order something else instead, refused to accept or pay for the food. Can the restaurant collect from the father? Answers: A. No, because the father's promise was made orally. B. No, because a third party will not be held liable for the contract obligations of another. C. Yes, because the father promised to pay. D. Yes, because a parent is liable to pay for necessities provided to a child.

B. $7,500, because the wholesaler was bound to keep the offer open for 7 days. Remember: Offeror is a merchant!! So firm offer rule requires him to keep it open.

Question 4220 A wholesaler of bicycle chains sent a retailer the following fax on December 1: "Because of your continued loyalty as a customer, I am prepared to sell you up to 1,000 units of Bicycle Chain Model D at $7.50 per unit, a 25% discount off our original $10.00 price. This offer will remain open for 7 days." The fax was not signed, but was on the wholesaler's letterhead and had been initialed by the wholesaler's head of sales. On December 4, the wholesaler's head of sales called the retailer and informed the retailer that he had decided to revoke his December 1 offer. On December 5, the retailer placed an order for 1,000 bicycle chains, stating that he would pay the discounted price of $7.50 per unit. What is the correct value of the order placed by the retailer? Answers: A. $7,500, because the wholesaler's revocation was not in writing. B. $7,500, because the wholesaler was bound to keep the offer open for 7 days. C. $10,000, because the offer was not signed by the wholesaler. D. $10,000, because the retailer did not provide consideration to hold the offer open.

C. $1,200 If you see Restitution, start with the benefit conferred. So, the benefit was $2000. The rest of the project cost the landlord an additional $800. Subtract that from the benefit.

Question 4383 An electrician and a landlord executed a contract under which the electrician agreed to upgrade the electricity in the landlord's ten-unit apartment building at a cost of $10,000. The electrician began work as scheduled and completed two of the ten identical units before quarreling with the landlord. The electrician refused to complete the job. The landlord hired another electrician who completed the last eight units at $1,100 each in the same time frame as was contemplated in the landlord's contract with the electrician. If the first electrician sues the landlord for restitution damages, how much will a court likely award? Answers: A. $9,200 B. $2,000 C. $1,200 D. $0

A. Yes, because the associate's promises created an express warranty.

Question 4225 A customer entered a hardware store to purchase paint. The associate who helped the customer had just been hired the day before, and was not trained with regard to paint selection. The customer explained that she was painting her house and had applied a water-based primer, and that she needed to select an appropriate top coat. The associate showed the customer an oil-based paint, assuring the customer that the paint was appropriate for the job. The associate then told the customer that he was selling the paint "as is," and that he could not be responsible for any adverse reactions. The customer made the purchase and used the oil-based paint to paint her house. Upon drying, the paint immediately peeled away from the water-based primer, causing extensive damage to the exterior of the house. In a breach of warranty action against the hardware store, will the customer prevail? Answers: A. Yes, because the associate's promises created an express warranty. B. Yes, because the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose cannot be disclaimed. C. No, because the associate's statement that the paint was sold "as is" disclaimed any warranties. D. No, because the associate was not a merchant.

A. The professor, because she repaired the stereo so that it conformed to the buyer's expectations.

Question 4227 A professor listed her car for sale on an online site. A buyer called and asked a series of questions, including the following, "I am not much of a music lover, but how does the stereo sound?" The professor replied that it sounded great. In reality, the stereo had short-circuited months earlier and blown out all the speakers in the process. Based on the conversation, the buyer entered into a written contract with the professor to purchase the car at a specified price. The contract provided for the buyer to pay for the car and take possession of it within three days. The next day, remorseful over her lie, the professor had the stereo and speakers restored to factory condition. On the day the buyer was supposed to take possession of the car, he learned from a student that the professor had lied about the condition of the stereo, and decided not to pay for the car. When the professor called the buyer later that day, the buyer told her he was not purchasing the car. The professor admitted her lie, and told the buyer that the stereo and speakers had been replaced. Nevertheless, the buyer refused to pay for the car. In a subsequent breach of contract suit, who will prevail? Answers: A. The professor, because she repaired the stereo so that it conformed to the buyer's expectations. B. The professor, because the condition of the stereo was not material to the buyer. C. The buyer, because the professor acted in bad faith in inducing the buyer to enter into the contract. D. The buyer, because he had the right to terminate the contract following the professor's misrepresentation.

C. The seller caused the buyer's confusion.

Question 4281 A seller posted an advertisement in coffee shops across the city stating, "Registered dog for sale for $5,000. I will deliver him to the home of the first to pay." Before the seller even got home, he received a call from a dog breeder, who stated that she wanted to buy the dog. She provided her credit card information to the seller, who accepted the payment, placed the dog in the car, and drove to the breeder's house. When he delivered the dog to her home, she learned the dog was female. The breeder wanted to breed puppies from within her home and already had a female dog. The seller apologized profusely that the posting included a typo, as he meant to type "deliver her to the home of the first to pay." What is the breeder's strongest argument in having the money refunded to her? Answers: A. That no contract was formed because there was only an advertisement, not an offer. B. The seller committed fraud. C. The seller caused the buyer's confusion. D. No performance occurred until the breeder accepted the dog.

A. Yes, because the court may supply the missing price term prior to the restaurateur's payment.

Question 4351 The owner of a failing café and a well-known restaurateur signed a written document indicating that the restaurateur would "pay for the transfer of all kitchen equipment within the kitchen at the café to the restaurant by December 31." After the cafe closed, the restaurateur went to the café and transferred all kitchen equipment to his own new restaurant site. The restaurateur researched the cost of the equipment at the time it was purchased and mailed a check to the café's owner for that amount. He had entered into many similar agreements with other businesses before, without any problems. The café owner immediately sent a letter to the restaurateur demanding the return of the kitchen equipment. The café owner argued that no contract was formed because the parties had not agreed to price and that the owner had anticipated a much higher sales price. Have the parties formed a valid and enforceable contract? Answers: A. Yes, because the court may supply the missing price term prior to the restaurateur's payment. B. Yes, because the restaurateur had entered into many similar agreements in the past. C. No, because a contract cannot be formed when there are missing terms. D. No, because the court had not supplied the missing price prior to performance.

A. Yes, because the salon owner accepted the manufacturer's offer. Remember with Mailbox Rule: - Acceptance is valid once SENT - If a rejection was sent BEFORE the acceptance, then whichever is received first prevails.

Question 4370 A salon owner contacted a manufacturer by email about purchasing shampoo sinks. The manufacturer sent the salon owner the following email: "I will sell you four shampoo sinks at a discounted price of $300 apiece." The salon owner responded immediately, rejecting the offer. However, due to a transmission problem in the internet routing system, the message was not delivered to the manufacturer until the following day. In the meantime, the salon owner contacted several other sellers, all of whom made significantly higher offers. The salon owner then sent another email to the manufacturer, stating, "I accept your offer." This email was delivered immediately. The following day, the misrouted rejection email arrived in the manufacturer's inbox. Assume the parties are in a jurisdiction that applies the mailbox rule to electronic communications. Was a contract formed? Answers: A. Yes, because the salon owner accepted the manufacturer's offer. B. Yes, because the mailbox rule applies. C. No, because the salon owner rejected the offer prior to accepting the offer. D. No, because the manufacturer received the salon owner's rejection.

D. No, because performance was impracticable.

Question 4372 A manufacturer of portable X-ray machines contracted with a healthcare system to provide 25 custom-made portable X-ray machines to the system's member hospitals, at a total cost of $3,000,000, to be delivered within sixty days. The machines use an isotope of the rare earth metal thulium as their radiation source. Without thulium, the portable X-ray machines cannot be manufactured. Several days after the manufacturer and healthcare system entered into the agreement, unprecedented rains in southern China caused a massive mudslide that destroyed operations at the only commercial thulium mine in the world. The mine owner stated that operations would not be restored for at least ninety days. The manufacturer subsequently informed the healthcare system that because of the sudden market shortage of thulium, it would not be able to deliver the portable X-ray machines in the time frame agreed upon in the contract. Sixty-one days after the contract was signed, the healthcare system filed a complaint alleging breach of contract. Will the healthcare system likely prevail in its suit against the manufacturer? Answers: A. Yes, because the manufacturer assumed the risk of the occurrence of a thulium shortage. B. Yes, because the UCC perfect tender rule requires strict performance of the terms of the contract. C. No, because the parties had made a mutual mistake. D. No, because performance was impracticable.

A. Correct Answer: Yes, because the charity was an assignee of the son's contractual rights.

Question 4374 A painter entered into a valid contract with a mayor to paint his portrait for $5,000. The contract provided that, rather than paying the painter, the mayor was to pay the $5,000 to the painter's son. The contract also prohibited the assignment of any rights or duties arising under the contract without the permission of the other party. Subsequently, the son, upon learning of the contract from his mother, decided to donate this money to a charity and transferred his rights under the contract to the charity without securing the permission of the mayor. The painter painted the portrait, but the mayor did not pay anyone. The charity filed suit against the mayor for breach of contract. The charity has taken no action nor incurred any expenses related to the contract. Will the charity prevail in its action against the mayor? Answers: A. Yes, because the charity was an assignee of the son's contractual rights. B. Yes, because the charity is a donee beneficiary of the contract. C. No, because the charity has not detrimentally relied on the mayor's promise. D. No, because the contract prohibits assignments.

D. No, because a delegation of duties does not absolve the lumberyard of its contractual liability.

Question 4375 A lumberyard contracted with a retail home improvement company to provide the company with pine boards of various lengths and amounts. The contract was silent as to delegation, and the lumberyard, acting in good faith, delegated its duties under the contract to a third party. After asking for, and receiving, assurances from the third party that the boards would conform to contract specifications, the company accepted the delegation. The third party delivered the boards, which the company rejected because the shipment did not conform to its specifications. The company sued both the lumberyard and the third party. The lumberyard moved to dismiss the claims against it. Should the court dismiss the suit against the lumberyard? Answers: A. Yes, because the company accepted the delegation. B. Yes, because the lumberyard delegated its contractual duties in good faith. C. No, because this sale of goods contract did not specifically allow for the delegation of duties. D. No, because a delegation of duties does not absolve the lumberyard of its contractual liability.

D. Correct Answer: No, because the farmer cured the nonconforming tender. This question is kind of shitty. Basically, because his belief that the guy would accept the tomatoes was "reasonable," he had the opportunity to cure even after the contract date passed.

Question 4379 A grocery store and a greenhouse farmer entered into a valid contract for 100 boxes of Grade 1 tomatoes, to be delivered on or before the end of the month. On the last day of the month, the farmer delivered 100 boxes of Grade 2 tomatoes to the store. Based on the price and popularity of Grade 2 tomatoes in the area, the farmer reasonably believed that the store would accept these tomatoes at a reduced price. When the grocery store refused to accept the delivery, the farmer promised to return the following morning with 100 boxes of Grade 1 tomatoes. When the farmer did, the grocery store again refused to accept the tomatoes. Is the store's rejection of the Grade 1 tomatoes proper? Answers: A. Yes, because their delivery was untimely. B. Yes, because the perfect tender rule applies to sales of goods. C. No, because the store's earlier rejection of the Grade 2 tomatoes at a reduced price was improper. D. No, because the farmer cured the nonconforming tender.

D. No, because the contract price was reasonable when the farmer agreed to it.

Question 4380 A farmer contracted with a fruit distributor to sell the distributor 1,000 bushels of peaches at $10 per bushel, the going market price for peaches. After the parties executed the contract, a late frost in a neighboring state completely destroyed that state's peach crop. The affected state normally produced over half the peaches grown in the country. In response, the market price of peaches spiked to over $50 per bushel. The farmer attempted to renegotiate with the distributor, who refused to modify the contract. Thereafter, the farmer refused to deliver the peaches as scheduled. The distributor sued the farmer, who raised the defense that to force him to sell his produce so far below market value would be unconscionable. Does the farmer have a valid defense? Answers: A. Yes, because no reasonable person would agree to sell peaches at one-fifth of market price. B. Yes, because the frost was unforeseeable. C. No, because the farmer and the distributor had fairly equal bargaining power. D. No, because the contract price was reasonable when the farmer agreed to it.

B. $370,000

Question 4381 A hotelier owned a hotel and the surrounding land. A portion of the land immediately behind the hotel was unused, and the hotelier wanted to develop it and install an in-ground pool. She contacted a general contractor in January, and the parties agreed that the contractor would build out a large terrace complete with a fifty-foot in-ground pool. They agreed to a price $400,000, with the contract to be completed before March 15, payable upon completion of the work. The hotelier stressed to the contractor the importance of completing the work before March 15 because that was when her vacation season began and she planned a special advertisement of the pool terrace to boost sales. The hotelier paid the contractor the $150,000 initial payment, but the contractor abandoned the job in late January without performing any work on the site. The hotelier hired a second contractor in February, who charged her $550,000 to complete the job. Despite the rush, the terrace was not ready until April 15, and the hotelier lost $70,000 in net profit due to documented reservation cancellations because of the unfinished construction. What is the most a court could properly award the hotelier? Answers: A. $550,000 B. $370,000 C. $220,000 D. $150,000

B. Correct Answer: When the clock was delivered to the carrier and a proper contract for its carriage was made.

Question 6006 A merchant and manufacturer entered into a contract for the sale of a large grandfather clock built by the manufacturer. The manufacturer already had a number of grandfather clocks built, each with slight aesthetic differences, and the contract provided for the sale of a particular clock identified by serial number. The contract specified that the manufacturer would ship the clock by a third-party carrier. However, the contract did not specify either who was to pay the costs of carriage or the place of tender for the clock. The manufacturer shipped the clock identified in the contract to the merchant via a carrier pursuant to a proper contract for its carriage. The carrier delivered the clock to the merchant and the merchant verified that the clock delivered was the one specified in the contract. Under these facts, when did risk of loss pass to the merchant? Answers: A. When the contract was made. B. When the clock was delivered to the carrier and a proper contract for its carriage was made. C. When the clock was unloaded on the merchant's premises by the carrier. D. When the merchant verified that the clock delivered was the clock specified in the contract.

C. $90,000, the builder's construction costs of $80,000 plus the $20,000 profit minus the $10,000 saved by selling the windows.

Question 6009 A store owner and a builder entered into a contract for the construction of an addition to the owner's store for $500,000. The builder calculated that he was to earn a profit of $20,000 for the job. A month later, the builder had spent $80,000 on labor and materials, including $15,000 on uninstalled windows. The reasonable market value of the labor and materials provided at that time was $50,000. At this point, the owner told the builder to stop working because the owner could no longer pay for the addition. The builder was able to sell the windows to a contractor for $10,000. In an action by the builder against store owner, which of the following is the highest amount of damages the builder may recover? Answers: A. $50,000, the reasonable value of the services the builder provided to the owner. B. $70,000, the builder's construction costs. C. $90,000, the builder's construction costs of $80,000 plus the $20,000 profit minus the $10,000 saved by selling the windows. D. $100,000, the builder's construction costs of $80,000 plus the $20,000 profit.

B. $3,900, the difference between the contract price and the price obtained from a proper resale of the motorcycle, plus the cost of six months of storage.

Question 6015 A biker agreed to buy a vintage motorcycle from a mechanic for $10,000, once the mechanic finished the restoration. The agreement provided that the biker would pick up and pay for the motorcycle on May 15. To protect the motorcycle from damage in his busy shop, the mechanic rented a garage to store the motorcycle while he restored it. After storage fees and the costs of the restoration materials, the mechanic expected a $4,000 profit from the contract. On May 15 when the biker came to pick up the motorcycle, even though the motorcycle was well-restored, the biker, for personal financial reasons, refused to pay for the motorcycle. The mechanic stored the motorcycle for another six months while he looked for another buyer, paying $900 in storage fees. He then sold the motorcycle for $7,000 to another buyer. Which of the following is the highest proper measure of the mechanic's damages? Answers: A. $3,000, the difference between the contract price and the price obtained from a proper resale of the motorcycle. B. $3,900, the difference between the contract price and the price obtained from a proper resale of the motorcycle, plus the cost of six months of storage. C. $4,000, the mechanic's expected profit for the contract. D. $10,000, the contract price of the motorcycle.

A. Yes, because the investor's main purpose in agreeing to pay the debt was to get the tax break.

Question 6031 A store owner heavily invested in a popular type of doll. Because he did not have $200,000 to pay the doll manufacturer, an investor orally guaranteed the manufacturer that he would answer for the store owner's debt. The investor entered into the suretyship promise because he knew that he could write off any loss, ensuring a tax break, which the investor wanted. The store owner went broke when the doll's popularity was eclipsed by the next big thing, friendship bracelets. He could not pay the manufacturer even a dollar. The manufacturer asked the investor to pay the money, but the investor refused. If the manufacturer sues the investor to recover the $200,000, will he likely prevail? Answers: A. Yes, because the investor's main purpose in agreeing to pay the debt was to get the tax break. B. Yes, because the investor promised to pay if the store owner could not. C. No, because the suretyship promise was not in writing. D. No, because the manufacturer had to sue the store owner first.

A. Yes, but only for the reasonable value of the food and delivery service provided by the grocery store for two months.

Question 6032 "A minor entered into a written contract with a grocery store in which the minor agreed to pay $75 a month in exchange for delivery of food items once a week to the minor's residence for a period of one year. For a couple of months, the minor paid the grocery store and the grocery store delivered the food each week. One month, the minor stopped paying the grocery store. The grocery store continued to deliver the food to the minor's residence despite the minor's nonpayment. At the end of two months of nonpayment, the grocery store contacted the minor and requested payment pursuant to the contract. In response, the minor communicated his disaffirmance of the contract. The grocery store then brought an action for breach of contract against the minor. It sought $150, the amount due under the contract. Is the minor liable on the contract?" Answers: A. Yes, but only for the reasonable value of the food and delivery service provided by the grocery store for two months. B. Yes, in the amount of $150. C. No, because the minor disaffirmed the contract. D. No, because the contract between the minor and the grocery store is void.

B. Yes, because the investor had partially performed the contract.

Question 6033 In a telephone conversation, a real estate investor promised to pay a home owner $500,000 for the owner's two-story house. The investor gave the owner $100,000 and told the owner he was going to have a crew come over to do renovation work on the house. Over the next three weeks, the investor's crew gutted the house's kitchen and replaced it with high-end cabinets and appliances, laid new flooring, installed new insulation, and rewired the electrical system in the entire house. When the agreed-upon date arrived for closing, the owner told the investor that he had changed his mind and would not sell the house. The investor sued for enforcement of the real estate sales contract. Will he likely prevail? Answers: A. Yes, because the owner agreed to sell the house to the investor. B. Yes, because the investor had partially performed the contract. C. No, because the agreement was not in writing. D. No, because the investor only paid the owner $100,000 before he started renovating the house.

C. Yes, because the parol evidence rule does not apply.

Question 6036 A dog walker and a dog owner entered into negotiations for the walker to provide twice daily walks for the owner's dachshund. After several emails back and forth, the owner and the walker agreed in writing that the walker would walk the dachshund at 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, for $15 per walk. The walker walked the dachshund as specified for a week. When the owner returned home from work in the evenings, however, she found that the dachshund's food and water bowls were always empty. She emailed the walker, explained that the dachshund had diabetes, and asked the walker to fill the bowls after each walk. The walker replied to the email and agreed to fill the bowls after each walk. Two weeks later, the owner returned home from work to find the dachshund in a diabetic coma; the dog's blood sugar had dropped because she had run a lot on her walk and then did not have any food in her bowl after the walk. She sued the walker for her veterinary expenses, citing the email in which the walker had agreed to fill the bowls after each walk. Will the court likely admit evidence of the walker's agreement to fill the bowls after each walk? Answers: A. No, because the contract between the parties did not include a requirement to fill the bowls. B. No, because the agreement to fill the bowls arose after the contract was executed. C. Yes, because the parol evidence rule does not apply. D. Yes, because there was no new consideration for the bowl filling.

D. Yes, because the evidence is being offered as a defense to formation of the contract. Being used to establish a defense to the formation!! -- Incompetence

Question 6037 A 90-year-old woman and a 21-year-old nurse entered into an agreement that the nurse would feed, bathe, and otherwise care for the elderly woman for $20,000 per week plus room and board. They set their agreement down in writing. When the woman's children learned of the contract, they refused to pay. The nurse sued, arguing that the writing was enforceable because it was totally integrated and in writing. The children argued that, based on prior conversations between their mother and the nurse in which the mother said the year was 1956 and the President was Eisenhower, the nurse knew that their mother was suffering from dementia. Will the court likely admit evidence of the prior conversations? Answers: A. No, because the writing was a totally integrated agreement. B. No, because the elderly woman signed the agreement. C. Yes, because the parol evidence rule applies. D. Yes, because the evidence is being offered as a defense to formation of the contract.

C. No, because the male roommate did not bargain for a legal detriment in exchange for the promise.

Question 6127 Two roommates lived together in a modest apartment for many years, during which time the female roommate purchased many items of furniture for the apartment. These items were worth roughly $10,000. When the female roommate decided to relocate across the country for a large promotion, she told the male roommate he could have all of the furniture when she left at the end of the month, as he had a much lower income. He wrote a long thank-you note telling her he was grateful. The next day at work, before the female roommate read the note, she learned that her promotion fell through and she decided to stay in the apartment. At the end of the month, can the male roommate enforce the female's promise to give him the furniture? Answers: A. Yes, because he accepted the offer of the furniture through the thank-you note. B. Yes, because he acquired full ownership of the property upon acceptance. C. No, because the male roommate did not bargain for a legal detriment in exchange for the promise. D. No, because the female roommate had not yet read the note regarding acceptance.

B. No, because the shipment of the additional units was conditioned on the distributor only selling to listed retailers.

Question 6352 On May 15, a toy manufacturer entered into a signed, written agreement with a distributor for the sale of a new line of toys. The agreement stated that the manufacturer would immediately ship 1,000 of the new toys to the distributor at a price of $4 per unit. Under the agreement, until June 15, the distributor could only sell the toys to certain retailers listed in the agreement in order to create a high demand for the new toys. Provided that the distributor complied with this requirement, the toy manufacturer would ship an additional 1,000 units for $2 per unit on June 15, and the distributor could then sell the toys to any retailers it chose. On June 1, the toy manufacturer learned that the distributor had sold some of the toys to one retailer not specifically listed in the agreement. On June 16, the distributor contacted the manufacturer to arrange for the shipment of the additional 1,000 units. The manufacturer refused to ship any additional units to the distributor. If the distributor sues the manufacturer for breach of contract, will it prevail? Answers: A. No, because the distributor acted in bad faith. B. No, because the shipment of the additional units was conditioned on the distributor only selling to listed retailers. C. Yes, because the distributor substantially complied with the condition regarding sale to listed retailers. D. Yes, because the manufacturer refused to ship the additional units as required under the agreement.

B. Correct Answer: No, because there was no consideration for the corporation's promise to pay the additional amount. At common law, must be consideration for a modification (unless unforeseen difficulties make it impracticable)

Question 6359 A corporation decided to hold an annual retreat for a long weekend during the summer. The corporation entered into a written agreement with a contractor for $8,000 to build a large stage on which the president, CEO, and other corporate officers could deliver speeches and present different programs. The stage was to contain all of the sophisticated technology necessary for innovative programming. The contractor was also responsible for installing a large tent to cover the area next to the stage, in case of bad weather. The agreement mandated that the work had to be completed by 6:00 p.m. on the day before the annual retreat was set to begin. The contractor was on vacation the week leading up to the annual retreat and decided to spend an extra day away. Two days before the corporation's annual retreat, the contractor finally began working on the project. Due to the time constraints, he realized that he would not be able to complete the project without extra help at an additional cost of $1,000. The corporation agreed to the additional cost because it had no other option and needed the project completed on time. After the contractor timely completed the project, the corporation paid him $8,000 but refused to pay the additional $1,000. Can the contractor recover the additional $1,000 from the corporation? Answers: A. No, because the agreement to pay the additional cost was not in writing. B. No, because there was no consideration for the corporation's promise to pay the additional amount. C. Yes, because the corporation agreed and the contractor completed performance on time. D. Yes, because the unforeseen difficulties make this modification enforceable.

A. Correct Answer: No, because building the chicken coop was a condition precedent. Remember!! Evidence of a condition precedent is not excluded by the parol evidence rule.

Question 6390 A chicken farmer raised chickens to sell to people who wanted to eat fresh, organic, cage-free eggs at a lower cost than buying from a store. A nutritionist who was interested in raising chickens contacted the chicken farmer. The two entered into a written agreement that contained a clause stating that the agreement was the final and complete agreement between them. Prior to finalizing the contract, the farmer and the nutritionist had spoken on the phone, and they orally agreed that the farmer would not sell the chickens to the nutritionist unless she built a chicken coop for the chickens. After the contract was signed, the nutritionist attempted to have a chicken coop built, but due to the difficulty of building one in her small backyard, the coop would not be completed until after the chickens were delivered. On the day of delivery, the farmer refused to sell the chickens to the nutritionist when he saw that the chicken coop was not habitable. Is the farmer in breach of contract? Answers: A. No, because building the chicken coop was a condition precedent. B. No, because the agreement to build the chicken coop was oral, not written. C. Yes, because the nutritionist made a good-faith effort to build the coop. D. Yes, because the oral agreement occurred before the contract was finalized.

A. No, because repudiating the promise to give his ex-wife $2,500 did not result in injustice to her.

Question 6411 A man learned that his ex-wife might lose their former marital home, which she had been awarded outright as part of the divorce decree, due to her inability to make the monthly mortgage payment of $2,500. He sent her a letter promising to send her $2,500 in a week "for the house." Upon receipt of the letter, the ex-wife entered into a contract to purchase a big screen TV for $2,500. Upon learning of the contract for the TV, the man told his ex-wife he would not be sending her any money. She has sued him for $2,500. Will the ex-wife prevail? Answers: A. No, because repudiating the promise to give his ex-wife $2,500 did not result in injustice to her. B. No, because the man's promise to give his ex-wife $2,500 did not result in an economic benefit to him. C. Yes, because the amount of the ex-wife's reliance equaled the amount promised by the man. D. Yes, because the ex-wife took action in response to the man's promise.

B. No, because the historian bore the risk of the mistake regarding where the Civil War battle actually took place.

Question 6466 An amateur historian sought to purchase a house and its surrounding land because he believed, based on his own research, that the property had been the site of a key battle in the U.S. Civil War. The historian discussed this fact with the owner of the property as they inspected the land, telling the owner of his plans to dismantle the house and landscape the land to rent it to a local historical reenactment group who wanted to reenact the battle. The owner of the property had never heard of the battle, and although he listened with interest, he did nothing to expressly confirm or deny the historian's belief. The historian entered into a written contract with the owner for the property. A few days prior to the closing date, the historian contacted the historical reenactment group to offer the land as a site for a reenactment, but the group correctly explained to the historian that he was mistaken—the battle had actually taken place two miles north of his property. If the historian sues the owner to void the contract, is he likely to prevail? Answers: A. No, because the fact that the battle did not occur on the property did not materially affect the bargain. B. No, because the historian bore the risk of the mistake regarding where the Civil War battle actually took place. C. Yes, because the historian's purpose in entering into the contract was frustrated. D. Yes, because the owner's failure to confirm or deny the historian's belief constituted a breach of the duty of good faith.

A. Correct Answer: Yes, because the clerk knew that the runner intended to use the shoes for marathon training, and the runner relied on the clerk's knowledge.

Question 6521 After a novice runner registered for an upcoming marathon, she went to a shoe store that specialized in shoes for runners. The runner informed a clerk at the store of her plans and of her need for appropriate shoes to train for the marathon. The clerk excused himself, went to the storeroom, and returned by mistake with shoes that were improper for long-distance running. The clerk, who was engaged in a conversation with another customer, handed the shoes to the runner but said nothing to her. The runner tried on the shoes and found that they fit. Impatient to leave, she took the shoes to the register and paid for them without talking with the clerk or any other store employee about the suitability of the shoes for her specific purpose. The cashier did notice that the shoes were on sale and told the runner that the shoes were sold "as is." The runner left the box that the shoes came in with the cashier, insisting that the shoes be placed in a recyclable bag that she had brought. She did not read the caution on the box that the shoes, although properly designed and made for running, were not specifically designed or made for long-distance running. The runner wore the shoes while training for the marathon. She suffered serious injury to her feet as a consequence. The runner has sued the store for breach of the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Is she likely to succeed? Answers: A. Yes, because the clerk knew that the runner intended to use the shoes for marathon training, and the runner relied on the clerk's knowledge. B. Yes, because the shoe store where the runner purchased the running shoes that were not suitable for marathon training was a merchant of running shoes. C. No, because the store employees did not make any express promise to the runner regarding the running shoes she purchased. D. No, because the cashier's "as is" comment regarding the shoes that the runner purchased constituted an effective disclaimer of any implied warranty.

D. Correct Answer: Yes, because the vendor properly retracted its repudiation on March 15. He should have emailed back on the 5th after the guy's shitty email in order to "cancel." By ignoring, the offer didn't close.

Question 7027 On March 1, an office supply vendor emailed a manufacturer asking the following: "We have received your catalog and are interested in doing business. Do you offer any discounts for bulk orders of printer ink?" On March 2, the manufacturer emailed the vendor the following reply: "For a limited time, we can offer you 1000 units of printer ink for 25% off the unit price." The vendor replied with the following by email on March 4: "We accept. Please deliver the printer ink to our address on March 30." The manufacturer replied with the following on the same day: "As noted in the Terms of Service in our catalog, we do not offer shipping. By March 20, you will need to choose one of the remote offices listed in our catalog. You can pick up the ink there on March 30." On March 5, the vendor emailed the following to the manufacturer: "At your prices, it is outrageous to refuse to offer shipping. We won't be doing business." The manufacturer never replied. On March 15, the vendor sent the following email to the manufacturer: "You drive a hard bargain. We will pick up the shipment at the closest remote office on March 30." If the manufacturer does not have the ink available by March 30, can the vendor recover in an action for breach of contract? Answers: A. No, because the manufacturer's price quote on March 2 was not an offer to form a contract. B. No, because the vendor clearly and unequivocally repudiated the contract on March 5. C. Yes, because both of the parties are merchants. D. Yes, because the vendor properly retracted its repudiation on March 15.

C. Yes, because the court has found that the term "year" is ambiguous.

Question 7032 In February, a vendor and a manufacturer entered a written contract under which the manufacturer would supply the vendor with a shipment of widgets each month for sale in the vendor's business. The contract provided that the manufacturer would "deliver 100 units of widgets on the last business day of each month until the end of the year." The manufacturer made satisfactory deliveries for seven months, and the vendor accepted each shipment. However, the vendor rejected the shipment delivered at the end of September. The manufacturer has sued the vendor for breach of contract. The vendor seeks to admit evidence from the pre-contract negotiations between the parties that the term "year" in the contract was understood by both parties to mean the end of the vendor's "fiscal year" in August, and therefore the vendor was under no further obligation to accept shipments from the manufacturer. The court has found that the term "year" in the contract is ambiguous. If the court finds that the February written contract is completely integrated, is the vendor's proffered evidence admissible? Answers: A. No, because the "four-corners" rule requires that the objective definitions of ambiguous contract terms control the meaning of the contract. B. No, because the parol evidence rule makes this evidence inadmissible. C. Yes, because the court has found that the term "year" is ambiguous. D. Yes, because the UCC permits the admission of this evidence even if the term was unambiguous.

D. The store, because the manufacturer assumed the risk that the new process would not produce suitable glass for lightbulbs.

Question 7040 A lightbulb manufacturer was trying to develop a new way to cool the glass for its industrial lights to make the glass lighter and stronger. On March 1, the manufacturer contracted in writing with a home improvement store to sell and deliver to the store 100 units of industrial light meeting the store's specifications and using the new glass. The delivery clause provided that the manufacturer would deliver the lights on or before May 15. As of March 1, the manufacturer had not yet successfully produced any lightbulbs using its new method, but it was confident that is was close to a breakthrough. However, on April 10, the manufacturer's development team concluded that the method they were developing consistently created glass unsuitable for industrial lightbulbs. The manufacturer immediately notified the store that, due to the present technological limits in the art of glass manufacturing, it was impossible for the manufacturer or any other company to fulfill an order of lightbulbs meeting the store's requested specifications. If the store sues the manufacturer for breach of the March 1 contract, which party is likely to prevail? Answers: A. The manufacturer, because it was objectively impossible to perform the manufacturer's duty under the contract. B. The manufacturer, because the manufacturer acted in good faith and used its best efforts to perfect the method under development. C. The store, because the defense of impossibility does not apply to merchants under the UCC. D. The store, because the manufacturer assumed the risk that the new process would not produce suitable glass for lightbulbs.

D. Yes, because the student decided not to apply for a dorm room in reasonable reliance on her aunt's promise to provide her a room.

Question 7041 An undergraduate student planned to transfer to a university in the town where her aunt resided and to live in an on-campus dorm. She told her aunt about her plans in an email. The next day, the aunt replied with an email containing the following: "I am so excited! If you don't want to deal with a roommate, don't apply for a room in the dorms, you can just stay in my spare room rent-free!" Elated, the student immediately submitted her transfer application without submitting an application for a dorm room on campus. After the deadline to apply for a dorm room had passed, the student's aunt called and explained that she had no room for the student because she was renting out her spare room to another student who was willing to pay rent. The student had to sign a lease in an off-campus apartment and ended up paying much more than she would have paid to live in the dorm. If the student sues her aunt to recover damages, is the student likely to recover? Answers: A. No, because the aunt's promise to provide a rent-free room is an unenforceable gift promise. B. No, because the student did not effectively accept the aunt's offer before it was revoked. C. Yes, because the agreement was in writing and the apartment was more expensive than the dorm. D. Yes, because the student decided not to apply for a dorm room in reasonable reliance on her aunt's promise to provide her a room.

D. Yes, because the supplier effectively accepted the restaurant's offer before the restaurant could revoke it. Acceptance occurred once SENT not received, so it was accepted before it was revoked. Don't get confused about when a rejection is sent before an acceptance!

Question 7043 A restaurant sent a signed order form to a produce supplier that read: "Please ship us 100 pounds of potatoes at your current price." The supplier received the order form on November 9. Later the same day, the supplier mailed the restaurant a letter with the proper address and postage. The letter stated that the order had been accepted at the supplier's current price for potatoes. On November 10, before receiving the supplier's reply, the restaurant telephoned the supplier to inform them that the restaurant had found a closer supplier and was canceling its order. The supplier asked the restaurant to reconsider, but the restaurant refused. On November 11, the restaurant received the supplier's letter. Relying on the restaurant's telephone call, the supplier never shipped any potatoes to the restaurant. As of November 12, is there an enforceable contract between the supplier and the restaurant? Answers: A. No, because the restaurant effectively revoked its offer before it was properly accepted. B. No, because the restaurant's offer could only be accepted by shipment of the goods, and the supplier never shipped the potatoes. C. Yes, because the restaurant's offer was irrevocable for a reasonable time. D. Yes, because the supplier effectively accepted the restaurant's offer before the restaurant could revoke it.

C. Yes, because the student was an intended beneficiary of the contract between his mother and the cleaning service.

Question 7085 A college student's mother hired a cleaning service to clean the student's apartment once a week for six months at $75 per week. For two months, the cleaning service sent the same cleaner to clean the student's apartment every week per the contract. However, in the third month, the cleaner stopped coming to clean, and the cleaning service did not send a replacement. Does the student have legal standing to enforce the contract against the cleaning service? Answers: A. No, because the student did not provide consideration to support a contract with the cleaning service. B. No, because he was a donee beneficiary. C. Yes, because the student was an intended beneficiary of the contract between his mother and the cleaning service. D. Yes, because the student is an incidental beneficiary of the contract between his mother and the cleaning service.

A. No, because the artist's payment was conditioned upon the family's satisfaction.

Question 7125 A wealthy family decided to have a family portrait painted. The mother contacted an artist and asked him to come to their home to paint the portrait. The mother and the artist entered into a valid written contract to paint the family's commissioned portrait for $15,000. The contract contained a clause by which the artist's payment was conditioned upon the family's satisfaction with the portrait. After the family finished sitting for the portrait and the artist completed his work, the artist revealed that he had painted the family's faces in pastel blue tones instead of using a pallet of flesh tones. Even though the portrait was of very high quality and would be objectively valued at approximately $15,000, the family disliked the aesthetic choice of color made by the artist and refused to accept or pay for the portrait. The artist subsequently sued to recover his fee under the contract. Is the artist likely to recover under the contract? Answers: A. No, because the artist's payment was conditioned upon the family's satisfaction. B. No, because the family did not accept or pay for the portrait. C. Yes, because the artist completed the portrait commissioned by the contract. D. Yes, because the portrait satisfied an objective standard of quality.

A. No, because the mother's promise to pay for the fishing pole is not supported by consideration.

Question 7131 A mother was in a canoe with her young son on a river. As the son leaned over the edge of the canoe to watch some ducks swim by, he fell into the river. The son could not swim and began to drown, so the mother jumped into the river to save him. However, she could not find him in the choppy water. A nearby fisherman saw the incident, jumped into the water, and saved the drowning boy by carrying him to the riverbank. In doing so, the fisherman was forced to drop the expensive fishing pole he was using to catch fish in the river, losing it forever. When the woman met the fisherman on the riverbank, she thanked him and promised to repay him for the lost fishing pole within the week. A week later, when the fisherman asked for the money, the mother changed her mind and told him she would not pay for his fishing pole. Assuming that none of the parties can be found negligent, under the common law, can the fisherman recover the cost of his fishing pole from the mother? Answers: A. No, because the mother's promise to pay for the fishing pole is not supported by consideration. B. No, because the son, and not the mother, received a material benefit from the fisherman. C. Yes, because the fisherman can recover under an implied-in-law contract. D. Yes, because the fisherman suffered a detriment when he dropped his fishing pole to save the son.

B. No, because the father's oral promise is unenforceable.

Question 7158 A daughter wanted to go to law school after she graduated from college. She took out a loan of $150,000, intending to use it to pay for her law school tuition. When she told her father about the loan and her plan, the father told her, "I think that is a very wise career choice, and I want to support you. When your loans go into repayment in three years, I will handle it." The daughter thanked him and went to law school. After two and a half years, the daughter decided she did not want to practice law. She dropped out and used the remainder of her loan to travel the world. Her loan went into repayment three years after the father made his promise. She asked her father to start making the loan payments on her behalf. The father refused. The daughter has brought an action against her father to enforce his promise to repay the daughter's loan. Is the daughter likely to succeed in her action? Answers: A. No, because the daughter did not finish law school. B. No, because the father's oral promise is unenforceable. C. Yes, because the promise was not conditioned upon the daughter's graduation. D. Yes, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

C. Yes, because the customer received the e-mail before attempting to accept the offer.

Question 7159 A seller owned a small, rare book store. On June 1, the seller had a conversation with a customer about a rare bound manuscript of a novel that the seller kept in her collection. The seller told the customer that she was interested in selling the manuscript, and that if he returned to the bookstore with $500 sometime within the next month, she would sell him the manuscript. The customer left the seller his e-mail address so that they could stay in touch and he also promised to return to purchase the manuscript. On June 10, a collector visited the bookstore and discussed the same manuscript with the seller. The collector offered the seller $5,000 for the manuscript, and the seller immediately accepted. She delivered the manuscript to the collector the next day. After delivering the manuscript to the collector, the seller immediately e-mailed the customer to revoke her offer. The customer received the e-mail that evening. The next day, the customer returned to the bookstore and attempted to purchase the manuscript for $500. Has the seller properly revoked her offer? Answers: A. No, because the customer accepted the seller's offer on June 1. B. No, because the seller is a merchant of books. C. Yes, because the customer received the e-mail before attempting to accept the offer. D. Yes, because the seller sold the manuscript to the collector on June 10.

B. The warehouse can immediately bring a valid breach of contract claim against the manufacturer for its failure to deliver tin widgets.

Question 7163 A widget manufacturer contracted in writing to deliver to a warehouse 500 tin widgets on November 1. In October, the price of tin rose, and the manufacturer could not obtain enough tin to fill the warehouse's order. However, the manufacturer still had leftover copper from a previous order that had been canceled. On November 1, the manufacturer delivered 500 copper widgets to the warehouse, explaining in good faith that it had no tin to work with and that the copper widgets were of a higher quality. The manufacturer then asked the warehouse to pay the contract price they had agreed upon for the lower quality tin widgets. The warehouse refused to accept the copper widgets and refused to pay the manufacturer any money. Which of the following most accurately describes the legal relationship between the warehouse and the manufacturer? Answers: A. The warehouse must give the manufacturer an opportunity to cure the breach before bringing a claim against the manufacturer. B. The warehouse can immediately bring a valid breach of contract claim against the manufacturer for its failure to deliver tin widgets. C. The manufacturer's duty under its contract with the warehouse was excused by the unavailability of tin. D. The manufacturer can immediately bring a valid breach of contract claim against the warehouse for rejecting the copper widgets.

A. The company, because it anticipatorily repudiated its contractual duty to deliver the logs.

Question 7593 A company entered into a written agreement to design a home constructed of logs for a buyer. As part of the agreement, the company was to purchase and prepare logs for the home and then deliver them to land owned by the buyer. The buyer was responsible for providing the equipment for removing the logs from the company's tractor-trailers and constructing the home using the logs and plans provided by the company. The agreement called for the buyer to make a final payment to the company prior to delivery of the logs. The company prepared the design plans and the logs, but before the buyer made his final payment, the company demanded to know how the buyer planned on removing the logs from its tractor-trailers. The company made this demand in good faith based on safety concerns, but in the mistaken belief that it had the right to do so under the contract. When the buyer refused to comply, the company informed the buyer that it would not deliver the logs. As a consequence, the buyer refused to make his final payment under the contract. Which party has breached its contractual obligation? Answers: A. The company, because it anticipatorily repudiated its contractual duty to deliver the logs. B. The company, because it demanded that the buyer provide information that the buyer was not contractually obligated to provide. C. The buyer, because he refused to comply with the company's demand to disclose how the buyer intended to remove the logs from the company's tractor-trailers. D. The buyer, because he refused to make his final payment under the contract.

C. Correct Answer: The individual, because he told the owner that he did not intend to pay for the car.

Question 7600 A 17-year-old individual, who was one month shy of his 18th birthday, purchased a used car from its owner. The owner was aware of the individual's age, but, having known the individual and his family for many years, agreed to the sale. Under the terms of sale, which were agreed to by both parties orally, the owner immediately transferred title to the car to the individual, and the individual agreed to make monthly payments of $200 for two years. Shortly after turning 18 years old, the individual, while carelessly driving the car, was involved in an accident that resulted in serious injuries to the driver of the other car and totaled the individual's car. Upon learning about the accident the following day, the owner contacted the individual. The individual told the owner that he did not intend to pay for the car. The age of majority in the applicable jurisdiction is 18 years old. The owner of the car has filed a breach of contract complaint against the individual to recover the contract price of $4,800. Who is likely to be successful in this action? Answers: A. The owner, because the individual had anticipatorily repudiated his contractual obligation to pay for the car. B. The owner, because the car was totaled due to the individual's carelessness. C. The individual, because he told the owner that he did not intend to pay for the car. D. The individual, because the contract was oral.

B. Correct Answer: Yes, because the owner did not respond to the written acknowledgement in a timely manner.

Question 7616 A shoe manufacturer contends that the owner of a shoe store called and ordered 50 pairs of a type of shoe. The manufacturer promptly sent the owner a written acknowledgment of the alleged order that reflected the manufacturer as seller and the shoe store owner as buyer, as well as the number and type of shoes, but that did not indicate the price of the shoes. The owner admits to receiving the acknowledgement the following day. Two weeks later, the owner received a shipment of 25 pairs of the shoes along with an invoice that reflected the price of $100 per pair. The owner immediately called the manufacturer and asserted that he had never ordered the shoes. Can the manufacturer enforce this contract against the owner? Answers: A. Yes, but only to the extent of $2,500, which is the price of the shoes shipped. B. Yes, because the owner did not respond to the written acknowledgement in a timely manner. C. No, because the acknowledgement did not indicate the price of the shoes. D. No, because of the Statute of Frauds.