Contract MC Questions

3 ways of assessing whether consideration supports a promise

1. Benefit/Detriment 2. Bargained for Exchange 3. Holmesian Theory

Two bodies of law for contract law

1. Common law 2. Article 2 of the UCC

Promissory Estoppel: 2 ways to prove detrimental reliance

1. Expenditure of funds 2. change of position

Coakley factors

1. Language of contract 2. Nature of the Business of the service 3. Intrinsic worth of the material

3 types of promissory estoppel transactions

1. Pre-acceptance Reliance for subcontractor bids 2. Pension/Retirement Benefits 3. Commercial Negotiation/ Insurance Coverage for Real estate insurance coverage

3 types of internet contracts

1. Shrink-wrap: purchase item with contract terms. Person bound to terms if item is not returned within a specified period of time 2. Click-wrap- contract created after clicking "agree" to terms 3. Browse-wrap: contract created by browsing the website if terms indicate that by browsing you agree to the terms on the site and you can find where it says it

Promissory Estoppel elements

1. Someone makes a promise; 2. Which he should reasonably expect; 3. Will lead to the promisee's action or forbearance; 4. The promisee does in fact justifiably rely on the promise to his detriment; and 5. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing of the promise.

Economic duress elements

1. a wrongful threat 2. lack or reasonable alternative 3. inducement of the contract by threat

Advertisement viewed as offer

1. bait and switch 2. first come, first serve 3. first 20 free

Elements of restitution

1. benefit conferred 2. knowledge of the benefit by the conferee 3. acceptance or retention of the benefit by the conferee 4. to avoid injustice, the person who conferred the benefit should be compensated

Elements to enforce a common law charitable pledge

1. existence of charitable pledge or subscription 2. consideration supporting or reliance of the pledge

restitution synonyms

1. quantum meruit 2. implied in law contract

Statute of Frauds Transactions

1.Contract for more than one year 2. sale or transfer of real estate 3. consideration supporting marriage 4. trustee/administrator 5. sureties 6. sale of goods exceeding $500

Ch. 05 [S] Madjid and Karen agree orally that Madjid will build a swimming pool Madjid and Karen agree orally that Madjid will build a swimming pool on Karen¶s land in exchange for $90,000. Karen then adds, ³Would you be willing also to construct a cabana behind the pool, and a cement walkway leading from the pool to the cabana?" Madjid replies, ³Yes. That will cost you an additional $15,000´Karen says, "Well then, let's not do it." The parties then create and sign a writing. It is long, elaborate, and exhaustively detailed, complete with a merger clause. Among all of its terms there is one, of course, providing that Madjid will build a swimming pool and that Karen will pay him $90,000. The parties sign the writing and, just afterward, Karen says, "I think, after all, that I would like you to build the cabana and walkway; I'll pay the $15,000." Madjid responds, "Yes, as I've already said, for the additional $15,000 I'll do that work." Madjid builds the swimming pool, whereupon Karen pays him $90,000. She then asks that he build the cabana and walkway. He refuses. Karen brings suit, avowing her willingness to pay the $15,000, alleging that Madjid's failure to build the cabana and walkway breached their contract. Accordingly, Karen proposes to testify to the parties' oral agreement concerning the cabana and walkway. Madjid objects. Because of the parol evidence rule, he argues, legally, the contract includes no term regarding the cabana or walkway. The court should: A. Allow Karen to testify, because the parol evidence rule has no application to her proposed testimony B. Allow Karen to testify only if she plans to testify that Madjid defrauded her C. Allow Karen to testify only if she plans to testify that Madjid defrauded her D. Not allow Karen to testify

A. Allow Karen to testify, because the parol evidence rule has no application to her proposed testimony

Interaction 1: (1) Angela: I have, for sale, 5,000 shares of stock in Atco Inc. I'm ready to sell you all 5,000 shares, now, for $5 million. Will you buy? (2) Wesley: Yes, but I'll pay only $4.8 million. (3) Angela: No, sorry, I said $5 million. (4) Wesley: Alright, $5 million will be fine. Interaction 2: (1) Dorothy: I have, for sale, 5,000 shares of stock in Tacto Inc. I am ready to sell you all 5,000 shares, now, for $5 million. Will you buy? (2) Charles: Yes, but I'll pay only $4.8 million. (3) Dorothy: No, sorry. (4) Charles: Alright then, I'll pay $5 million. (I.) Angela and Wesley have formed a contract. (II.) Dorothy and Charles have formed a contract. Which is correct? A. I but not II B. II but not I C. Both I and II D. Neither I nor II

A. I but not II

Interaction 1: Victoria owns Jewel X, the only one of its kind. Its fair market value, however, is only $10 because notwithstanding its uniqueness, the market imputes to it only a small value. Wendell owns Jewel Y, the only one of its kind, with a fair market value of $1 million. Wendell, different from all others, yearns to have Jewel X and does not care for Jewel Y, the one he owns. He contemplates selling Jewel Y for $1 million, buying Jewel X from Victoria for $10 (or more, if she demands it) and keeping for himself whatever remains of the $1 million he collects for Jewel Y. Wendell takes his proposal to Victoria who, craving to own Jewel Y responds. Victoria: I'll trade my Jewel X for your Jewel Y; that's my offer, and I'll hear of no other. Wendell: I should give you a $1 million jewel in exchange for a $10 jewel? Victoria: You're the one who so badly wants my Jewel X, and I badly want your Jewel Y. What the jewels might be worth on the ordinary market is irrelevant. I'll trade you Jewel X for Jewel Y. Wendell: I accept the offer; it's a deal. The parties set forth all terms of their agreement in a writing, and both of them sign it. Interaction 2: Thales is Ursula's uncle. He wants to promise Ursula that she'll have his $100,000 grandfather's clock when she turns 21. Having heard that a promise is unenforceable if made without a reciprocal consideration, he speaks to Ursula. Thales: If you'll pay me $10 right now, then when you turn 21, I will give you my grandfather's clock. Ursula: You want me to pay you the tiny sum of $10 for a clock worth $100,000? Thales: I don't really want the $10, but I must ask that you pay it so my promise is legally enforceable. Ursula pays Thales the $10. Thales signs and gives Ursula a writing: "On this date, March 9, 2017, in consideration of $10 paid me by my niece Ursula, I do promise that when the said Ursula reaches her twenty-first birthday I will give her the grandfather's clock that now stands in my living room." (I.) Wendell and Victoria have formed a contract. (II.) Thales and Ursula have formed a contract. Which is correct? A. I but not II B. II but not I C. Both I and II D. Neither I nor II

A. I but not II

David is principal of a large high school. By policy, at the end of the day on Fridays, maintenance personnel lock all classroom doors. On a particular Friday the relevant maintenance staff are absent. On that Friday afternoon David says to Esther, one of the school's teachers, "If at the end of the day you will lock all of the classroom doors, I'll pay you $25. No promises, please. Do the work and we have a deal." At the end of the day, Esther begins to do the job. Once she locks a single classroom door, and begins to lock a second one, (I.) David may not revoke his offer. (II.) Esther is obliged, within a reasonable time, to complete the job. Which is correct? A. I only B. II only C. Both I and II D. Neither I nor II

A. I only

Ch. 07 [A] Laura is a skilled hair colorist Laura is a skilled hair colorist who celebrates her eighteenth birthday on May 15. Laura's friend Jeanie is a skilled hair colorist too. Jeanie will turn eighteen on May 16. Stated otherwise, Laura is one day older than Jeanie. In the jurisdiction in which the girls reside, eighteen is the age of majority/adulthood. On May 15, Laura's birthday, the girls agree that (1) "right now," Jeanie (the younger) will re-color Laura's hair, immediately after which (2) Laura (the older) will re-color Jeanie's hair. Each party properly performs. On the next day, May 16, (Jeanie's eighteenth birthday), Jeanie demands that Laura pay her the fair market value of the work (re-coloring) she performed on Laura's hair. Laura responds, "Well, then I expect you to pay me the exact same amount for the work I did in recoloring your hair, so we'll be even." Which girl is entitled to the payment for which she makes demand? A. Jeanie but not Laura B. Laura but not Jeanie C. Both Laura and Jeanie D. Neither Laura nor Jeanie

A. Jeanie but not Laura

Ch. 03 [S] Ben manufactures doors. Ben manufactures doors. Shelly manufactures hinges. On February 1, Shelly sends Ben this signed writing: ³I am prepared to sell you our hinge 17-N at 70 cents per unit, quantity 10,000 units delivered to your factory. The offer is firm and irrevocable for nine months, after which time it expires." As for the next events, please consider these alternatives: (I.) On the morning of April 30, by signed writing, Shelly contacts Ben: "I withdraw my offer of February 1." Later that same day, by signed writing, Ben responds, "I accept your offer of February 1." (II.) On the morning of May 1, by signed writing, Shelly contacts Ben: "I withdraw my offer of February 1." Later that same day, by signed writing, Ben responds, "I accept your offer of February 1." Shelly and Ben form a contract in: A. Scenario I but not II B. Scenario II but not I C. Both scenarios I and II D. Neither scenario I nor II

A. Scenario I but not II

Ch. 05 [A] Consistent with its authority, the State Highway Commissioner approaches Roadco Consistent with its authority, the State Highway Commissioner approaches Roadco. The parties conduct negotiations that look toward a contract under which Roadco will construct a highway, with the state to pay Roadco for its work. During the course of negotiations Roadco says to State, "Whatever are, finally, the agreed fee and timetable, we will want a bonus for early completion: 2% of the agreed fee for every seven days of early completion." The Commissioner responds, "Yes, State agrees to that." Ultimately, the parties create a writing, 91 pages long, with a highly detailed description of reciprocal rights and duties. At its end, the writing features this clause: "Entire Agreement: This writing embodies the parties' complete and final agreement on its subject matter." Both parties sign. Neither notices that for all its detail and specificity the document fails to include the bonus provision on which they orally agreed. Roadco completes its work three weeks ahead of schedule. It submits to the State Treasurer a demand for the $25 million fee, plus a bonus of (2% x $25 million) x (3 weeks) = $1.5 million. The Treasurer pays the $25 million fee. She refuses to pay a bonus, stating that "the contract does not provide for any." Roadco sues State for breach of contract. At trial it proffers the testimony of the Commissioner, who is prepared to testify that the parties did orally agree on the bonus provision, and that he is surprised now to learn that it did not appear in the contract. "It should have been there." The court rules, "The Commissioner's proposed testimony is inadmissible. By law, the parties' contract includes no bonus provision, even if the parties truly agreed on one." In order to properly reach that decision, the court should have concluded that with respect to the parties' contract, A. Their writing constituted a total integration B. Their writing constituted only a partial integration C. The bonus agreement contradicted the terms of their writing D. The bonus agreement was "collateral" to the agreement set forth in the writing

A. Their writing constituted a total integration

Bennett owns two bicycles, bicycles X and Y. He wants to sell bicycle Y, but not bicycle X. On a public street, he is seated on bicycle X, to which he has attached a sign, "My bicycle for sale, $75." Walking on the street, Chase approaches Bennett, who says, "As the sign says, my bicycle is for sale; $75 takes it." Chase believes that Bennett is offering for sale the very bicycle on which he sits²bicycle X. With that in mind, Chase takes $75 from his pocket and says, "I'll take it." Chase hands Bennett the $75 and says, "So, would you give it over to me please? I'll ride it away now." Bennett responds, "Oh, no. I was referring not to this bicycle, but to another of my bicycles, a bicycle I have sitting in my garage. It, too, is my bicycle." These parties have contracted for the sale of: A. Bicycle y, the bicycle sitting in Bennett's garage B. Bicycle X, the bicycle on which Bennett is seated C. Whichever of the two bicycles Chase wishes to own regardless of Bennett's wishes D. No bicycle, no meeting of the minds

B. Bicycle X, the bicycle on which Bennett is seated

Carco, an automobile dealer, places an internet advertisement: "New General Morons Cadillacking, a giveaway²two of them this coming Saturday, one to each of the first two customers who accepts our offer by arriving at our showroom. Drive it out the door! We open at 9:00 AM." On the next Saturday, at 9:00 AM, Carco opens its showroom doors. Xavier is first to enter. She announces her wish to have one of the advertised Cadillackings. Carco's personnel refuse to give her one. "It was just an advertisement," they say. "We did not want anyone to take it literally. We don't even have any Cadillackings in stock." Xavier insists that by refusing to give her a Cadillacking, Carco is in breach of contract. Among the following, Xavier's strongest position would be that: A. Carco publicized its advertisement using a widely distributed public medium and should, therefore, have expected that it be taken seriously B. Carco's advertisement identified Carco's offerees, expressly, as the first two persons who should enter its showroom on a specific day C. With respect to automobiles, Carco is a UCC Article 2 "merchant" so that its offers to sell automobiles are irrevocable for a reasonable time after Carco makes them. D. By publishing its advertisement when it did not have available the vehicles at issue, Carco committed a fraud.

B. Carco's advertisement identified Carco's offerees, expressly, as the first two persons who should enter its showroom on a specific day

Ch. 09 [S] architect Axel is an architect. On September 1, he and Bournia form a contract under which by December 31, he is to create an architectural plan, with Bournia to pay him $50,000 when he completes the work. On November 1, Axel advises Bournia that he has taken on another more profitable assignment and will not be creating the architectural plan, stating: "Since you have not yet paid me anything, you should have no complaint." On November 15, by signed writing, Axel contacts Bournia: "Things have changed. I will after all create the architectural plan for which we contracted. I'll have it finished by December 31, as agreed." Axel has successfully reinstated the contract if: (I.) At some time between November 1 and November 15 Bournia contracts with another architect to perform the relevant work. (II.) Between November 1 and November 15 Bournia takes no action except to urge that Axel honor his promise. Which statement is correct? A. I but not II B. II but not I C. Both I and II D. Neither I nor II

B. II but not I

Ch. 02 [K] Interaction 1, Larry and Melissa converse Interaction 1: Larry and Melissa converse: Larry: I have a ticket for tomorrow night's Chopin concert at the Palladium, but I won't be able to go. You may have it if you'd like. Melissa: Yes, thank you, I'll take it. When Melissa then asks that Larry give her the ticket, Larry refuses. Interaction 2: Nat and Odessa converse: Nat: I'd like you to be exposed to what I call good music. I have a ticket for tomorrow night's Chopin concert at the Palladium, but I won't be able to go. You may have it if, in turn, you promise to attend the concert. Odessa: Yes, thank you, I'll take it. When Odessa then asks that Nat give her the ticket, Nat refuses. (I.) Larry is in breach of contract. (II.) Nat is in breach of contract. Which is correct? A. I only B. II only C. Both I and II D. Neither I nor II

B. II only

Ch. 04 [K] By oral agreement, a firm handshake and with a properly structured writing By oral agreement, a firm handshake and with a properly structured writing, wholly <i>un</i>signed, Buyer and Seller agree (1) that Seller will sell her land to Buyer, and (2) that the parties will meet, with their lawyers, two months hence in order to "close" the transaction. To Buyer, Seller will convey the appropriate deed, and Buyer will pay Seller the purchase price. When the closing date arrives, Buyer stands ready with a $5 million certified check payable to Seller, but Seller refuses to furnish Buyer with the deed; she refuses to sell the land. Buyer wants to enforce the contract against Seller, but he cannot do so, because: A. He himself did not sign the writing B. Seller did not sign the writing C. Once two parties record the terms of a contract in writing, the contract is unenforceable unless both parties sign it Notwithstanding that buyer was prepared to pay Seller the agreed purchased price...

B. Seller did not sign the writing

Ch. 07 [S] Wendell and Yoris negotiate toward a contract Wendell and Yoris negotiate toward a contract for the sale by Yoris to Wendell of 100,000 Fortex valves. Wendell asks whether the valves¶hinges are composed of plastic or steel. Yoris, in fact, does not know the answer and says, "Which do you want?" "Steel," Wendell responded. "Well, you're in luck. These valves do have steel hinges." By signed writing, the parties contract for the purchase of 100,000 valves for $200,000. The writing is exhaustively detailed, and includes a merger clause. It describes the goods to be sold as "100,000 Fortex valves." It makes no mention of hinges. After the parties sign the writing, for reasons unrelated to hinges, Wendell asks to see a few of the valves. He examines them and finds that their hinges are composed of plastic. He alerts Yoris to that fact. Yoris responds, "Read our contract, it calls for Fortex valves and says nothing about hinges." Is Wendell entitled to rescind the contract? A. Yes, if he had good and compelling reason for preferring steel valves B. Yes, because Yoris committed a fraudulent misrepresentation C. No, because Yoris has not yet committed a breach D. No, because the writing is total integration

B. Yes, because Yoris committed a fraudulent misrepresentation

Ch. 08 [A] Switchco manufactures electrical switches. Switchco manufactures electrical switches. Wireco engineers electrical systems for newly constructed buildings. By signed writing, Wireco contacts Switchco and offers to purchase 50,000 Capehart electrical switches type 12 for a total price of $150,000. By signed writing, Switchco accepts the offer. Before Switchco makes delivery, Wireco contacts Switchco again: "When making our offer to you, we erred. We meant to order not 50,000 units, but 55,000 units for that same price of $150,000." Again by signed writing, Switchco responds, "That's fine. We'll deliver 55,000 units." Switchco then delivers to Wireco only 50,000 units and refuses to deliver any additional ones. Is Switchco in breach of contract? A. Yes, on the grounds of Wireco's unilateral mistake. B. Yes, because it agreed to deliver the additional 5,000 switches C. No, because Wireco is not in the business of selling switches D. No, because Wireco provided no additional consideration for the additional switches

B. Yes, because it agreed to deliver the additional 5,000 switches

Ch. 03 [A] Nell, Nanette's niece, is about to begin her first year of college. Nell, Nanette's niece, is about to begin her first year of college. Beyond the financial aid she receives, Nell needs an additional $20,000 to pay her first year's tuition²$10,000 at the start of the first semester and another $10,000 at the start of the second. Nanette has that amount in savings. She wants to use it to pay Nell's first year tuition but, on the other hand, fears that she herself might someday need it. To her wealthy friend Frank, Nanette discloses these facts. By signed writing, Frank advises Nanette, "Don't worry. You can use your $20,000 savings to pay Nell's tuition. I'll reimburse you, right away, $15,000, so you'll have spent only $5,000." Armed with Frank's promise, Nanette pays the college $10,000 toward Nell's first year tuition, planning to pay the remaining $10,000 when the second semester begins. Immediately after Nanette makes that first semester's 10,000 payment, Frank changes his mind and tells Nannette that he will not reimburse her for any amount at all. Nonetheless, when the second semester approaches, Nanette pays the college $10,000 for Nell's second semester. She then seeks to recover $15,000 from Frank, according to the promise he made her. Frank refuses to pay her any amount at all. Does Nanette have a sustainable cause of action against Frank? A. Yes, for $15,000, the amount Frank promised to reimburse her B. Yes, for only $10,000, the amount she spent for Nell's first semester C. No, because Nanette gave Frank no consideration for his promise D. No, because Frank's promise amounted to "nudum pactum"

B. Yes, for only $10,000, the amount she spent for Nell's first semester

Ch. 08 [K] Contractor and Hotel form a contract under which Contractor is to construct a massive recreation area Contractor and Hotel form a contract under which Contractor is to construct a massive recreation area on Hotel¶s land. In order to fulfill her obligations Contractor must secure the services of subcontractors²electricians, masons, heating specialists, plumbers, and others with whom she will form contracts for the purchase of their services. Contractor asks five separate plumbers to ³bid on´the plumbing components of the project. From four of the plumbers Contractor receives offers/³bids´for: (1) $2 million, (2) $2.1 million, (3) $1.96 million, and (4) $1.98 million. The fifth bidder, Plumbco, determines to make a bid of $1.7 million. In writing the bid, one of Plumbco's clerks, by simple error, writes ³$170,000 instead of $1,700,000. On receiving Plumbco¶s bid, Contractor snaps it up, and writes to Plumbco, ³We accept your bid/offer.´When Plumbco discovers its error it wishes not to perform the work for so little as $170,000. Is Plumbco entitled to rescind the contract? A. Yes, because Contractor has not yet relied on the contract B. Yes, on the basis of unilateral mistake C. No, because Contractor accepted its offer D. No, because Plumbco bears the risk of its own error

B. Yes, on the basis of unilateral mistake

Difference between unilateral and bilateral contract

Bilateral is a promise for a promise. Unilateral is a promise for performance

Ch. 09 [S] By signed writing, Doressa and Benson form a contract of purchase and sale By signed writing, Doressa and Benson form a contract of purchase and sale. It describes Doressa's obligation thus: "If she is able to acquire it, Doressa will sell, supply, and deliver to Benson thirteen tons of Sanitech Concrete at a price of $20,000 per ton, delivery and payment to be made as described in paragraph 2 below." Doressa fails to deliver the concrete, and Benson sues Doressa for breach. As to Doressa's acquisition of the concrete: A. Doressa has the burden of proving that she was unable to acquire it, because her obligation is subject to a condition subsequent B. Doressa has the burden of proving that she was unable to acquire it, because her obligation is subject to a condition precedent C. Benson has the burden of proving that Doressa was able to acquire it, because Doressa's obligation is subject to a condition precedent D. Benson has the burden of proving that Doressa was able to acquire it, because Doressa's obligation is subject to a condition subsequent

C. Benson has the burden of proving that Doressa was able to acquire it, because Doressa's obligation is subject to a condition precedent

By telephone, Lawrence contacts Rent-All, with whom he has never before done business. (1) Lawrence: I know that you rent trucks of various sizes for various periods. I'd like to rent one. I'll be using it to move all of my furniture to a storage facility, because I expect to be away for two years and will be renting my home to a tenant who has her own furniture. What can you offer? (2) Rent-All: We can and do offer to serve your needs. Come on in. Do you have our address? (3) Lawrence: Yes; until what time tonight are you open? (4) Rent-All: Until 10:00 this evening. (5) Lawrence: Terrific; I accept your offer; I'll come in; we have deal. Regarding this interaction: (I.) Every communication is a "mere" invitation to deal. (II.) The parties' agreement is too vague and indefinite to create a contract. Which is correct? A. I but not II B. II but not I C. Both I and II D. Neither I nor II

C. Both I and II

Ch. 09 [K] Photoco manufactures cameras Photoco manufactures cameras. It fabricates its own lenses, but sends the cameras and lenses to Lensco, who <i>installs</i> a lens in each camera. On August 1, Photoco and Lensco form a contract under which Lensco will install lenses in 100,000 Photoco cameras. By November 1, Lensco is to complete the work and deliver the cameras back to Photoco. On November 2, Photoco is to pay Lensco $1 million. On November 1, Lensco delivers to Photoco 75,000 cameras, with lenses installed. It advises Photoco, "We will deliver the remaining 25,000 cameras in 30 days." (I.) Photoco is entitled, permanently, to withhold the whole $1 million to which the contract refers. (II.) Photoco is entitled to cancel the contract. Which statement is correct? A. I but not II B. II but not I C. Both I and II D. Neither I nor II

C. Both I and II

Ch. 09 [S] Sophia hired workers to re-roof her office building Sophia hired workers to re-roof her office building. They first loaded the roof with equipment and tools, light, heavy, large, and small. They then abandoned the job. The roof remains littered with all such items. Now, on April 10, by signed writing, Sophia forms a contract with Aiden, under which Aiden, beginning May 1, will re-roof the building; he will do the work that the earlier hired workers abandoned. He is to finish the work by May 31. As for one part of Sophia's obligations, the contract provides, "Sophia will ensure that by May 1 the roof is cleared of all equipment, tools, and paraphernalia." Aiden's obligation is described thus: "If, as agreed, Sophia, by May 1, ensures that there is removed from the work area all tools, equipment, and paraphernalia left there by others, Aiden, beginning May 1, will perform all work described above according to the schedules and time tables shown above, for the payment named above." On April 30, Sophia contacts Aiden: "I have not yet had all of that junk removed from the roof, so I don't know what we should do." Aiden, responds, "Don't worry about it, I'll deal with it; my workers and I will begin work tomorrow, as agreed, and we'll finish on time." (I.) On May 1, Aiden must begin work, even though Sophia did not have the roof cleared. (II.) Sophia is in breach of contract. Which statement is correct? A. I but not II B. II but not I C. Both I and II D. Neither I nor II

C. Both I and II

At the Bluewater Marina, Matthew works on his recreational wooden sailing yacht, repairing damage done by rot. To Nadia, a nearby fellow boater, he says, "I wish I had never acquired a wooden boat. For this one, just one year ago, I paid $200,000, and I spend less time sailing her than I do repairing her rotted wood. If you want this vessel, you can have it for fifty cents." To that, Nadia says, "It's a deal." Matthew responds, "I was joking, of course." Nadia insists that the parties have a contract for the purchase and sale of the boat for fifty cents. Is she right? A. Yes, the offered price is fifty cents, and the contract is outside the statute of frauds B. Yes, Matthew's actual words create an offer regardless of his intention C. No, Nadia was not justified in believing that Matthew meant what he said D. No, one who speaks in jest does not make an offer even if another takes him seriously

C. No, Nadia was not justified in believing that Matthew meant what he said

Debbie and Francis are roommates. Debbie says to Francis, "I think I'll clean out the front closet today." Francis responds, "That's nice of you. In exchange, I'll clean out the back closet today." Are Debbie and Francis obliged to honor their promises? A. Yes, because each party's promise served as consideration for the other's B. Yes, because together, the two promises created a bargain C. No, because neither party's promise was "bargained for." D. No, because neither party's promise confers a benefit on the other.

C. No, because neither party's promise was "bargained for."

On January 1, Cindy and Doug agree that for one year, Cindy will hold open an offer to sell Doug a parcel of land for $1 million and that if at any time during the year Doug decides to purchase the land he must, at that time (a) first pay Cindy $50,000 "for the option to purchase," and then (b) pay her the $1 million purchase price. Three months later, Cindy writes to Doug, "I have decided not to sell my land. I withdraw my offer of January 1." Doug immediately sends Cindy two checks, one for $50,000 and another for $1 million. With them he includes this message: "I hereby exercise my option to purchase the land." Cindy returns the checks and refuses to convey the land. Is Cindy in breach of contract? A. Yes, because Cindy sold Doug an enforceable option to purchase the real estate B. Yes, because the agreement was set forth in a writing signed by both parties C. No, because the agreement exacts no consideration from Doug D. No, because the agreement exacts no consideration from Cindy

C. No, because the agreement exacts no consideration from Doug

Ch. 05 [A] Orally, Felicia and Gary agree that each will be the other's partner in ownership Orally, Felicia and Gary agree that each will be the other's partner in ownership and operation of a retail pharmacy. They prepare a writing, exhaustively detailed in all respects, providing at its end: "Merger: This writing constitutes the complete and final expression of the parties' agreement on this subject matter." Before signing the document Felicia says to Gary, "Before I'm bound by all of this, I'd like to have my lawyer approve it. So, let's sign now, with the understanding that I'm not bound unless and until my lawyer gives me his o.k." Gary responds, "That's fine." Both parties sign the writing. Felicia visits her lawyer, who reads the writing and disapproves several of its provisions. Is Felicia bound by the writing? A. Yes, because the writing embodies a merger clause B. Yes, because the writing constitutes a total integration C. No, because the parties agreed that Felicia's obligation was subject to a condition precedent D. No, because a contractual writing is generally unenforceable if it omits a term that the parties by prior oral agreement expressly intended to include in their agreement

C. No, because the parties agreed that Felicia's obligation was subject to a condition precedent

Ch. 04 [S] Geneco sells generators Geneco sells generators. Wanda is its sales representative. On a scrap of paper, in handwriting, Manny sends Wanda an inquiry regarding his wish to purchase a 200,000 kilowatt generator. Wanda responds, also on a scrap of paper in handwriting, "Accepted, the generator is available to you now²$300,000; delivery in ten days to your facility [address]." At the bottom of that paper, Wanda attempts to write her initials with a pen that is empty of ink. But the tip of the pen does make, on the paper, an etching of her initials. By fax, Wanda sends (an image) of the paper to Manny. On the fax, as received by Manny, Wanda's initials are not at all visible. Manny responds by telephone call. "Thanks very much, we'll expect delivery." Thereafter Wanda contacts Manny and announces that she will not sell the generator. Please consider this question: <i>Can Manny sustain an action against Wanda for breach of contract? </i> With respect to that question, which of the following constitutes an <i>issue</i>? A. Whether Manny is a merchant B. Whether Wanda is a merchant C. Whether Wanda signed the paper D. Whether the generator is a good

C. Whether Wanda signed the paper

Ch. 04 [S] Agrico is in the business of growing grain Agrico is in the business of growing grain. Modigen creates genetically modified grain seeds. On February 1, orally, the two companies form a contract under which Modigen is to sell Agrico 50,000 commercial units of its seed, for delivery on April 1. For the seeds, Agrico is to pay $500,000. On April 1, Modigen fails to deliver the seeds, truthfully asserting that Agrico had not yet paid it any part of the purchase price. Agrico asserts that it has no obligation to pay the purchase price until the seeds are delivered. Agrico sues Modigen for breach. In its answer, Modigen admits that the parties formed a contract for the sale of 50,000 units of seed in exchange for $500,000. As defenses, it asserts (1) that it had no obligation to deliver the merchandise until Agrico paid the purchase price and (2) that the contract is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Before trial, Agrico moves to dismiss the statute of frauds defense. Should the court grant its motion? A. No, because the total contract price for all goods sold exceeds $500 B. No, because Modigen did not specially manufacture the goods for agrico C. Yes, because in its answer, Modigen admits to contracting for the sale of 50,000 units of seed D. Yes, because as a party allegedly in breach, Modigen is estopped to assert the statute of frauds.

C. Yes, because in its answer, Modigen admits to contracting for the sale of 50,000 units of seed

Ch. 08 [K] Winslow owns a truck whose engine she cannot start Winslow owns a truck whose engine she cannot start. Her mechanic advises her that the engine is "shot," and must be replaced. Winslow then offers the truck for sale at a price of $1,000, whereas a usable truck of the same type, variety, and age would command a price of $15,000. On April 1, Shane expresses interest in purchasing the truck and asks Winslow why her asking price is so low. Winslow explains that the truck's engine is inoperable and needs replacement. Shane and his mechanic examine the truck. The mechanic advises Shane that "the engine is no good, but the truck is otherwise in great condition. It's easily worth $1,000. Replace the engine for $8,000 and you'll have a good deal." By signed writing, Winslow and Shane form a contract under which Shane is to pay Winslow $1,000, with Winslow to convey the truck to Shane, the actual payment and transfer (the "closing") to occur on May 1. Then, on April 30, Winslow discovers, in fact, that the engine is easily repairable with the replacement of a single $2 part. She contacts Shane: "It turns out this engine is fine. The truck is worth far more than $1,000. Our deal is off. I won't be at the closing tomorrow.´Shane insists that "the deal is on; I expect to see you at tomorrow's closing." "No way," Winslow says, "you haven't paid me any money yet, so you're not harmed. Again, the deal is off." Is Winslow entitled to rescind the contract? A. No, because by law, one bears the risk of his own mistake B. No, because his mechanic's advice reflected an expert opinion C. Yes, because the contract of sale was premised on mutual mistake D. Yes, because Shane had not yet paid any money to Winslow

C. Yes, because the contract of sale was premised on mutual mistake

Wilfred has recently published a novel, <i>The Dark Side of the Moon</i>. By signed writing, Movieco, a film producer, contacts him: "We wish to adapt your recent novel to film, using the title, <i>Dark on One Side</i>. We propose to have you write the screenplay in exchange for (1) $500,000 to be paid you if and when you accept this offer, (2) a 2% royalty on gross box office ticket sales, and (3) 2% of revenues paid to us for home video and streaming rights." You may accept this offer only by providing us with a ten-page sample of the screenplay you intend to write. We will then be in contract under which for your part, you will complete the screenplay. For our part we will be obliged to produce the film, distribute the film, and pay you as described above." Movieco has made Wilfred an offer for: A. A unilateral contract, because it allows him to accept only by performing an act B. A unilateral contract, because once he accepts, the contract will be executory only on Movieco's part. C. A bilateral contract, because it calls for the payment of money in exchange for an act(s). D. A bilateral contract, because once Wilfred accepts it will remain, still, for both parties to perform.

D. A bilateral contract, because once Wilfred accepts it will remain, still, for both parties to perform.

Ch. 09 [K] Copyco leases photocopiers Copyco leases photocopiers. Printco is a large printing enterprise. In operating its business Printco uses hundreds of photocopiers every day. On December 31, 2016 pursuant to a signed writing, Copyco leases and delivers to Printco 300 photocopiers under terms that require Printco to pay Copyco $400,000 yearly for two years²$200,000 on January 2 and $200,000 on June 2. Copyco delivers the photocopiers on January 2, 2017 and Printco makes its first $200,000 payment. On February 1, Printco contacts Copyco: "Please come and take back the copiers. We won't be using them and we won't pay for them." Immediately, Copyco sues Printco for breach, and the parties stipulate to these facts: (1) that they did form the contract described above, and (2) that Printco did announce its plan not to make any more of the required $200,000 payments. Nonetheless, Printco moves to dismiss. It argues that Copyco's suit is premature because Printco has not yet missed a single payment. The court should: A. Grant the motion, because Printco is not yet in breach B. Grant the motion, because Copyco has not yet suffered damage. C. Deny the motion, because it goes to a question of fact that requires a trial D. Deny the motion, because Printco has committed a total anticipatory repudiation

D. Deny the motion, because Printco has committed a total anticipatory repudiation

Ch. 02 [S] Furnco sells office furniture Furnco sells office furniture. Rachel owns office buildings that she rents to tenants. On a signed Purchase Order form, Furnco offers to sell Rachel 2,000 HighBrow office desks for $400,000, the desks to be delivered on August 1. On a signed Sales Confirmation form, Rachel responds, "Accepted, and, of course, you warranty the merchandise for at least three years." Furnco makes no response. In order to rule that these parties formed a contract for the sale of the 2,000 office desks, the court must first find that: (I.) It is usual practice among sellers of office furniture to warranty their products for three years or more. (II.) Both parties are merchants. A. I only B. II only C. Both I and II D. Neither I nor II

D. Neither I nor II

Inadequate consideration is not sufficient to support a promise? T or F

False

Princess Cruise, Inc. v. General Electric Co. applies to what concept?

Mirror Image Rule

Charitable pledge?

Offer to make a donation for a charitable purpose

If mirror image rule is not satisfied?

Person with last shot making the last terms creates a counteroffer to the other party who can reject, accept or counteroffer

Promissory estoppel v. consideration

Promissory estoppel is used when there is no consideration to support a promise made to avoid injustice so the two will never be used for the same thing

Persuasive authority for contracts

Restatement (2nd) of COntracts

offeree conditionally accepts an offer

a. rejects the offer b. terminates the offeree's power of acceptance c. creates a counter offer d. accepts the offer

classical theory of unilateral contracts

complete performance

modern theory of unilateral contracts

part performance/substantial performance/beginning performance

Illusory promise

promise that does not legally oblige one to perform