Contracts I- MCQ
10. Ann lends money to Bob, who later dies without paying the debt. Chris, Bob's widow, promises to pay the debt. May Ann successfully sue Chris for the amount promised? Why?
No. This was not Chris's debt, so there's no legal duty to pay. Additionally, there's no moral obligation here to support the promise—Chris is not the one who received any benefit from Ann.
9. Bob owes Ann $100, but the debt was discharged in Bob's bankruptcy. Thereafter, Bob promises Ann, in writing, that he will pay the debt "as soon as I sell the mill." Two years later, Bob sells the mill. If Ann sues Bob to recover the $100, will she succeed? Why?
Yes. The promise was in writing, promising to pay a debt he was no longer obligated to pay.
4. Ann promised to pay $100 to Bob for his delivery of either a male or female puppy from Bob's dog's next litter. Bob promised to delivery the puppy to Ann. Is there consideration here to make their agreement binding? Why or why not?
Yes. The promises were exchanged one for the other. Both pups have legal value. It is irrelevant which one Bob delivers—because both alternatives have legal value to provide consideration.
8. Ann owes Bob $500. Bob may not collect the debt because it is time barred under the statute of limitations. Without comment, Ann sends Bob a check for $50. If Bob sues Ann for the remainder of the debt, will his suit be successful? Why?
Yes. Unless the debtor limits the amount owed by his or her words, a partial payment acts as a promise to pay the whole.
A law school student offered to sell his roommate, an undergraduate student, his winter jacket for $100. The undergraduate student replied, "Would you consider taking $75.00?" The law school student replied, "No." The undergraduate replied, "Fine, we have a deal for $100." No further communications ensued. Is there an enforceable contract? A. Yes, if the undergraduate's initial response was a mere inquiry. B. Yes, because the offer was firm. C. No, because the undergraduate did not pay consideration. D. No, the undergraduate's counteroffer terminated the ability to accept.
A
Camille Rose was an avid record collector. She had an expansive collection of all of the most popular vinyl records, including all but one David Bowie album. The David Bowie album she did not have was Space Oddity. She placed the following ad on Craigslist: $100 offered for information on the availability for purchase of a vinyl copy of David Bowie's Space Oddity album, in good condition. Contact Camille at (555) 555-5555. The ad was placed Friday, May 10 and was to run for a week, starting Sunday, May 12. Therese Tulip was another record collector, and independently knew that Camille was looking for the vinyl. On Sunday morning, she saw the record at a swap meet. Therese called Camille as soon as she left the swap meet and told her where she could find the record. Therese had not seen the Craigslist ad. Randy Record saw Camille's ad on Monday morning and called her right away to give her a tip on the availability of the record at a local record shop. Randy was the first person to call in response to the ad. Camille thanked Randy, but told him that she had already found the record she needed and did not want a second. Camille also truthfully told Randy that she had already contacted Craigslist at 10:00 a.m. that morning and cancelled the ad for the rest of the week, and therefore felt there was no longer a viable reward offer. 14. Randy Record also sued Camille for the $100 reward. Will Randy recover? (A) Yes, because Camille's attempted revocation was ineffective against Randy. (B) Yes, because Randy detrimentally relied on Camille's promise. (C) No, because Therese had already called about the record. (D) No, because Camille did not buy the vinyl that Randy told her about.
A
Danny Dude and his friends were having a wine tasting in Danny's wine cellar. Danny was having a good time and had become rather tipsy. He was slurring his words and stumbling a little. About an hour into the tasting, Danny was furious to find that he couldn't find his most precious bottle, a $2,500 bottle of 2000 Chateau Lafite Rothschild. Danny yells at the assembled crowd, "$250,000 to anyone who can produce a 2000 Chateau Lafite Rothschild." Everyone laughed at this ridiculous price, but Pearl took Danny seriously. Pearl slipped out of the tasting, immediately went to the nearest wine store, and bought a bottle of 2000 Chateau Lafite Rothschild for $2,500. Pearl brought the bottle back to the event before the wine tasting had finished. 9. Danny's offer of $250,000 for the $2,500 bottle of wine is most likely: (A) Not an offer because a reasonable person would not believe Danny intended to offer $250,000 for a $2,500 bottle of wine. (B) Not an offer because the subject matter of the offer was missing. (C) An enforceable offer, but Danny can revoke the offer at any time if he changes his mind. (D) An enforceable offer, and Danny cannot revoke the offer because Pearl had materially relied on the offer by going to the store and purchasing the wine.
A
Peter Pixie and Dean Dant were drinking together at Dean's house when Dean tells Peter he is dying to purchase his house. Peter, who was feeling tipsy, scoffed at the idea and said "You couldn't afford it you imbecile!" Dean, who was unaware Peter was feeling the booze so much, responded, "Well, sure I could, I'll give you $500,000 for it." Peter shook his head and said, "No, make it $700,000," and Dean replied, "$600,000 and we have a deal." Peter said "Ok, $600,000 it is." Peter and Dean then wrote up a contract on a napkin that stated that Peter would sell his house to Dean for $600,000, payment was to be made by check on the following Wednesday, and the two even called Dean's wife into the room whereupon Peter, Dean and Dean's wife all signed the napkin contract. The following Wednesday, Dean went back to Peter with a cashier's check to tender payment. Peter yells, "You fool! I was only joking. I never intended to sell you my property. I was higher than a 747!" 10. Assuming $600,000 was the fair market value for the home, in a suit between Peter and Dean, what is the likely result? (A) The two were in a contract if a reasonable person in Dean's position would believe they had entered into a contract. (B) The two were in a contract if Peter subjectively believed they were entering into a contract. (C) The two were not in a contract if Dean subjectively believed they were not entering into a contract. (D) The two were not in an enforceable contract because the napkin agreement does not satisfy the Statute of Frauds.
A
Sam was a landscaper. Both Ashley and Betty owned homes and explained to Sam that they needed their front yards completely landscaped. On June 15, Sam mailed Ashley and Betty offers to landscape their yards. Sam offered to landscape Ashley's for $1,000, and offered to do Betty's yard for $1,500. Both offers stated that Sam's offer would be open until June 30. On the morning of June 20, Ashley mailed Sam a properly stamped and addressed letter stating, "I accept your offer." That afternoon Ashley spoke with Zack, who said he'd do the job for $700. Ashley immediately mailed a letter to Sam by express mail that read, "Please disregard my other letter. I found someone else to landscape my lawn." On June 21, Sam received the letter Ashley sent by express mail. The next day, on June 22, Sam received Ashley's first letter. Sam demanded that Ashley permit him to do the work for $1,000, but Ashley refused. On June 24, Betty mailed a letter to Sam stating, "$1,500 is too much, I would agree to pay you $1,000 if you will agree to do the job." On June 25, Betty spoke to a few other landscapers, who said they would not do the job for less than $2,000. Realizing she could not get a better price, that afternoon Betty sent a letter by express mail to Sam stating, "Disregard my letter of 6/24. I accept your offer." Sam received both of Betty's letters on June 26. On June 27, Betty spoke to Thomas, another landscaper. Thomas said he could do the job for $1,000. Betty immediately called Sam and said (before Sam could say anything), "This is Betty, and the deal is off." Sam then demanded that Betty permit him to do the work for $1,500. Betty refused. Assume Betty's first letter (the letter not sent by express mail) was received on the morning of June 26, and Betty's letter sent by express mail was received on the afternoon of June 26. If Sam sues Betty for breach of contract Sam will: A. Lose, because Sam received Betty's first letter before Sam received the letter Betty sent by express mail. B. Lose, because Betty's first letter had legal effect when it was sent. C. Prevail, because Betty's first letter did not have legal effect until Sam received it. D. Prevail, because the letter Betty sent by express mail had legal effect when it was sent, even though it was not received first.
A
Ann says to Bob, "If you will mow my lawn next week, I will pay you $10." If Bob says nothing, begins mowing her lawn, but does not complete it, is Bob in breach of contract? Why or why not?
A contract is created as stated in the feedback to questions 3 and 4, and when read with Restatement 62, where either promise or performance is acceptance, the beginning of the performance acts as a promise to render complete performance. Bob is in breach.
7. Bob owes Ann three debts of $500 each. Ann may not collect any of these debts because they are time barred under the statute of limitations. Bob writes to Ann, "I promise to pay you one of the $500 debts. I will not pay the others." If Bob does not pay Ann and she sues him, how much may she recover? Why?
Ann may recover $500 only. Bob is only bound to pay the amount promised.
Homeowner calls up Hardware Store ("Store") on the phone and asks the representative how much Store charges for Acme-brand, two-foot-high vinyl picket fencing. Store's representative said, "$2 per running foot." Homeowner said, "Great. I'll take 200 running feet and will be down this afternoon to pick it up." Assume no further communication or actions by the parties. Which is the most accurate description of the parties' status at this point in time? (A) Store has made an enforceable offer to Homeowner, but Homeowner has not effectively accepted the offer. (B) Store and Homeowner are not in a valid contract. (C) Store and Homeowner are in a valid contract for 200 running feet of the fencing. Store and Homeowner are in a unilateral option contract where Store is bound to sell 200 running feet of the Acme fencing at $2/running foot, but Homeowner can terminate
B
Pam Poodle was opening a dog salon and needed someone to paint the salon. She wrote Bill Brush, a commercial painter, an e-mail stating "I'm opening up a dog salon next week and need someone to paint. If you come by and paint the shop, I'll pay you $2,500. Let me know, or just come by next week and start painting." Pam was out of town buying supplies the next week, but Bill went to the salon and began painting. One week later, Pam saw Bill at the salon and told him she no longer needed him to paint the salon. Pam ordered Bill off her premises and has refused to pay him. 11. Which of the following statements is most correct? (A) Pam could revoke her offer at any time before the job was completed. (B) A contract between Pam and Bill was formed when Bill began painting. (C) Bill could walk away before finishing, but Pam could not terminate him without incurring contractual liability. (D) Bill is entitled to the fair market value of the painting services he provided before Pam demanded he leave.
B
Seller put an ad in the paper saying he would sell his land for a minimum of $50,000. Buyer wrote him expressing interest in purchasing the land. Seller e-mailed Buyer telling her she needed to act fast if she was interested, because he had other offers for the property. The next communication from Buyer to Seller was an e-mail from Buyer stating that she had opened escrow with instructions to the escrow agent to pay Seller $50,000 upon receipt of good title to the property. Seller wrote back that he had already sold the property to another for $60,000. 5. If Buyer sued Seller for breach of contract, which of the following is true? (A) Seller should prevail because Seller revoked his offer when he told Buyer she had to act fast. (B) Seller should prevail because they had not entered into a contract. (C) Buyer should prevail because Seller breached an enforceable contract to sell the property for $50,000. (D) Buyer should prevail because she materially relied on Seller's offer when she opened escrow.
B
Two law school colleagues were at the school library studying for midterms. A first term student proclaimed, "I decided this morning that I am going to sell my laptop for $400." The second term student replied, "I accept, I will buy the laptop for $400." Which of the following statements is true at the time the second term student announced their acceptance: A. The two students have an enforceable contract and the first student is obligated to sell their laptop for $400. B. There is no valid contract. C. There is a valid contract because the first term student has manifested a willingness to enter into a contract. D. There is a valid option contract.
B
Ann says to Bob, "If you will mow my lawn next week, I will pay you $10." If Bob says nothing, but mows her lawn is there a contract? Why or why not?
Because Ann's offer does not specify a way for Bob to accept, or at least it's unclear what she required, Restatement § 32 says that Bob, the offeree may accept either by promising to perform or by performing. So for both #3 and #4—there is a contract.
Ann says to Bob, "If you will mow my lawn next week, I will pay you $10." If Bob says, "I accept," is there a contract? Why or why not?
Because Ann's offer does not specify a way for Bob to accept, or at least it's unclear what she required, Restatement § 32 says that Bob, the offeree may accept either by promising to perform or by performing. So for both #3 and #4—there is a contract.
5. Ann says to Bob, "Bob, if I buy that new car I've been looking at, I'll sell you my old car for $5,000." Bob replied, "It's a deal!" Ann bought the new car, but traded her old one in to the dealer. Bob sued her for breach of contract. Who wins? Why?
Bob. There was an offer, "I'll sell you my old car for $5,000," an acceptance "It's a deal," and consideration. Although there would have been no obligation for Ann to buy the new car, once she did, her future was restricted—she must sell the old car to Bob. So her choices were to either buy no new car or to buy the new car and sell the old one to Bob—her actions were limited, providing consideration.
A Husband and Wife recently moved into a new home. The home included a washer and dryer. The Husband hated doing the laundry. The Husband said to his Wife, "I will give you $5,000 if you do all the laundry this year." Assuming that an objective person would find that this offer was valid, would a court likely enforce the promise to pay? A. Yes, because the Husband's offer was communicated. B. Yes, because the offer includes an exchange of money. C. No, unless the court finds the promise overcomes the presumption for social contracts. D. No, because the contract did not involve an implied promise.
C
A law school student offered to sell his roommate, an undergraduate student, his winter jacket for $100. The undergraduate student replied, "I will pay 75." The law school student replied, "No, I can only do $100." The undergraduate replied, "Fine, we have a deal for $100." No further communications ensued. Is there an enforceable contract? A. Yes, because the undergraduate's response was timely made. B. Yes, because there was no termination of the power to accept. C. Yes, because of the law school student's offer remained open. D. No, the undergraduate's counteroffer terminated the ability to accept.
C
A law student was studying for midterms at a local coffee shop. When the student finished studying, they left their computer that included all their outlines and documents. The student placed several signs around town stating "$100 to the person who finds and returns my computer in working condition." The sign included a photo of the student's lap top. A local artist was visiting the coffee shop and noticed the computer. She opened it up and found the contact information for the student and called the student. "I have your computer. I will wait for your return at the coffee shop to return it." The law student arrived immediately and retired their computer thanking the artist profusely. On the way home, the artist noticed the signs and called the student to inquire about the $100 reward mentioning that she had just noticed one of the signs. The student replied that the artist was not entitled to the reward. The law student is: A. Incorrect, because the artist materially relied on the reward poster. B. Incorrect, because the public interest is to have rewards paid. C. Correct, the reward was a private reward and the artist did not learn about it until after she returned the computer. D. Correct, because the artist did not learn of the reward directly from the offeror.
C
Camille Rose was an avid record collector. She had an expansive collection of all of the most popular vinyl records, including all but one David Bowie album. The David Bowie album she did not have was Space Oddity. She placed the following ad on Craigslist: $100 offered for information on the availability for purchase of a vinyl copy of David Bowie's Space Oddity album, in good condition. Contact Camille at (555) 555-5555. The ad was placed Friday, May 10 and was to run for a week, starting Sunday, May 12. Therese Tulip was another record collector, and independently knew that Camille was looking for the vinyl. On Sunday morning, she saw the record at a swap meet. Therese called Camille as soon as she left the swap meet and told her where she could find the record. Therese had not seen the Craigslist ad. Randy Record saw Camille's ad on Monday morning and called her right away to give her a tip on the availability of the record at a local record shop. Randy was the first person to call in response to the ad. Camille thanked Randy, but told him that she had already found the record she needed and did not want a second. Camille also truthfully told Randy that she had already contacted Craigslist at 10:00 a.m. that morning and cancelled the ad for the rest of the week, and therefore felt there was no longer a viable reward offer. 13. A few days after telling Camille about the record, Therese found out about the ad and reward. She demanded payment from Camille who refused. If Therese sued for the reward will she prevail? (A) Yes, Camille must pay Therese because she bought the record based on her tip. (B) Yes, Camille must pay Therese because her revocation was ineffective against Therese. (C) No, Therese cannot collect because she did not know of the offer when she called Camille. (D) No, Therese cannot collect because Camille's ad was not an offer.
C
Paul Pack published an ad in his local newspaper offering "$500 to whoever provides information" that results in the recovery of Alice, his dog. Ann calls Paul on Tuesday and says she saw Alice at City Park near Paul's home. Dana calls Paul on Thursday and tells Paul she saw Alice in the same park. Paul went to City Park and found Alice on Friday afternoon. Paul paid Ann $500, but told Dana that he already had the information about Alice being in City Park before her call; so he did not believe he was obligated to pay her. Dana sues Paul for breach of contract. 12. In the suit between Dana and Paul, Dana will likely: (A) Prevail, because Paul did not revoke the reward offer before Dana gave the information. (B) Prevail, because Dana knew about the reward offer before she provided the information and intended to accept it. (C) Lose, because Ann had already accepted the reward offer. (D) Lose, because ads are not offers, but rather solicitations for offers.
C
Sally Seller has an upscale clothing store on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. She puts an advertisement in the LA Times that she is selling skinny jeans for $175, a bargain for this particular designer. Betty Buyer, a fashionista on a budget, was ecstatic to hear about the sale and went to the store that very same afternoon, as soon as she got off work. Betty pulled $175 cash from her purse and said, "I'll take the skinny jeans in a size 4, please." Sally had already sold out of Betty's size. She explained the situation to Betty, who was furious. Betty became even angrier when Sally refused to give Betty a "rain check," allowing Betty to purchase the jeans at the same price when her size came in. Betty sued Sally for breach of contract. 7. In the suit against Sally Seller, Betty will likely: (A) Prevail, because Sally made a viable offer that Betty accepted by showing up at the store, with cash, to purchase the jeans in response to the ad and on the same day the ad ran in the paper. (B) Prevail, because while Sally was not in breach for running out of Betty's size, she was in breach for failing to give her a "rain check." (C) Lose, because Sally has not made a valid offer. (D) Lose, because Betty did not effectively tender performance.
C
Sam was a landscaper. Both Ashley and Betty owned homes and explained to Sam that they needed their front yards completely landscaped. On June 15, Sam mailed Ashley and Betty offers to landscape their yards. Sam offered to landscape Ashley's for $1,000, and offered to do Betty's yard for $1,500. Both offers stated that Sam's offer would be open until June 30. On the morning of June 20, Ashley mailed Sam a properly stamped and addressed letter stating, "I accept your offer." That afternoon Ashley spoke with Zack, who said he'd do the job for $700. Ashley immediately mailed a letter to Sam by express mail that read, "Please disregard my other letter. I found someone else to landscape my lawn." On June 21, Sam received the letter Ashley sent by express mail. The next day, on June 22, Sam received Ashley's first letter. Sam demanded that Ashley permit him to do the work for $1,000, but Ashley refused. On June 24, Betty mailed a letter to Sam stating, "$1,500 is too much, I would agree to pay you $1,000 if you will agree to do the job." On June 25, Betty spoke to a few other landscapers, who said they would not do the job for less than $2,000. Realizing she could not get a better price, that afternoon Betty sent a letter by express mail to Sam stating, "Disregard my letter of 6/24. I accept your offer." Sam received both of Betty's letters on June 26. On June 27, Betty spoke to Thomas, another landscaper. Thomas said he could do the job for $1,000. Betty immediately called Sam and said (before Sam could say anything), "This is Betty, and the deal is off." Sam then demanded that Betty permit him to do the work for $1,500. Betty refused. For the purposes of this question only, assume that the letter Betty sent by express mail was received on the morning of June 26, and Betty's first letter (the letter not sent by express mail) was received on the afternoon of June 26. If Sam sues Betty for breach of contract Sam will: A. Lose, because the letter Betty sent by express mail did not have legal effect when it was sent. B. Lose, because Betty's first letter had legal effect when it was sent, even though it was not received first. C. Prevail, because Sam received the letter Betty sent by express mail before Sam received Betty's first letter. D. Prevail, because the letter Betty sent by express mail had legal effect when it was sent.
C
Paula and Dan Draper are a married couple with a new baby named Sarah. Dan hates giving Sarah baths. Just before Sarah's first birthday, Dan says to Paula, "I'll give you $1,500 if you bathe Sarah until she is two years old." 1. Assuming that a reasonable person would think that Dan was serious, is his promise to pay $1,500 enforceable? (A) Yes, because Dan is obtaining a legal benefit by the promise, and Paula is suffering a legal detriment from the promise. Thus, there is consideration to support the contract, (B) Yes, because a court would enforce Dan's promise on moral consideration grounds. (C) No, so long as a court finds that Paula would benefit from bathing Sarah. (D) No, unless a court finds the promise overcomes the normal presumption that governs such agreements.
D
Rowdy Records is a music store in Indianapolis, Indiana. Rowdy's took out an advertisement in Monday's edition of the Indianapolis Star that read: "Freaky Friday Sale! Ten DVD's (titles and description listed at bottom of ad) for only $1 each to the first customer who walks through our door this Friday!" 6. Is the ad an enforceable offer? (A) No, because advertisements are solicitations for offers, not offers themselves. (B) Yes, under the UCC, but not under common law. (C) Yes under common law, but not under the UCC. (D) Yes, because all attributes of an enforceable offer are present.
D
Sally Seller and her friend Brian Buyer were at lunch one day when Sally told Brian, "I decided last night I am going to sell my motorcycle for $800." Brian, who thought this was a deal he couldn't refuse, responded "I accept, I will buy your motorcycle for $800." Assume $800 was a fair price for the motorcycle. 2. Which of the following assertions is true at the time of Brian's statement? (A) Sally and Brian have entered into an enforceable contract and Sally is obligated to sell Brian her motorcycle for $800. (B) Sally and Brian have not entered into a contract. (C) Sally is an offeree with the power of acceptance to enter into a binding contract with Brian to purchase the bike for $800. (D) Both (B) and (C) are correct.
D
Sam Seller tells Barry Buyer that he is considering selling his property. Sam invited Buyer to make an offer. Barry says: "How about $60,000?" to which Sam responds, "No, I wouldn't consider selling it for less than $75,000." Barry then says, "I accept, I'll pay you $75,000 for your property." There was no further communication between the two parties. 4. Is there a contract between Sam and Barry? (A) Yes, because Buyer validly accepted Seller's enforceable offer to sell the property for $75,000. (B) Yes, because Seller's failure to respond to Buyer when he said "I accept, I'll pay you $75,000 for your property," constitutes an implied acceptance on Seller's part, since Seller invited Buyer to make an offer on the property in the first place. (C) No, if the fair market value of the property was really $60,000. (D) No, because Seller did not make an enforceable offer, so Buyer did not have the power to accept.
D
Sam was a landscaper. Both Ashley and Betty owned homes and explained to Sam that they needed their front yards completely landscaped. On June 15, Sam mailed Ashley and Betty offers to landscape their yards. Sam offered to landscape Ashley's for $1,000, and offered to do Betty's yard for $1,500. Both offers stated that Sam's offer would be open until June 30. On the morning of June 20, Ashley mailed Sam a properly stamped and addressed letter stating, "I accept your offer." That afternoon Ashley spoke with Zack, who said he'd do the job for $700. Ashley immediately mailed a letter to Sam by express mail that read, "Please disregard my other letter. I found someone else to landscape my lawn." On June 21, Sam received the letter Ashley sent by express mail. The next day, on June 22, Sam received Ashley's first letter. Sam demanded that Ashley permit him to do the work for $1,000, but Ashley refused. On June 24, Betty mailed a letter to Sam stating, "$1,500 is too much, I would agree to pay you $1,000 if you will agree to do the job." On June 25, Betty spoke to a few other landscapers, who said they would not do the job for less than $2,000. Realizing she could not get a better price, that afternoon Betty sent a letter by express mail to Sam stating, "Disregard my letter of 6/24. I accept your offer." Sam received both of Betty's letters on June 26. On June 27, Betty spoke to Thomas, another landscaper. Thomas said he could do the job for $1,000. Betty immediately called Sam and said (before Sam could say anything), "This is Betty, and the deal is off." Sam then demanded that Betty permit him to do the work for $1,500. Betty refused. 6. If Sam sues Ashley for breach of contract, Sam will: A. Lose, because Sam received the letter Ashley sent by express mail before he received Ashley's first letter. B. Lose, because the acceptance in Ashley's first letter could be revoked up until the time Sam received it. C. Prevail, because the letter Ashley sent by express mail did not have legal effect until Sam received it. D. Prevail, because the acceptance in Ashley's first letter had legal effect when it was sent, even though Sam did not receive it first.
D
Ann leaves the country for a two-week vacation. When she returns, there is a note on her door stating the following: "Ann, have been watering your lawn for you for the past two weeks. I didn't want your flowers to die. You can just leave your check for me in my mailbox to compensate me for my time (2 hours). Your neighbor, Bob." Ann did not ask Bob to water her lawn before she left, and she has never asked Bob to do this for her in the past. Must Ann pay Bob? Why or why not?
General Rule. Silence is not acceptance. And here, Ann had no reason to know or expect that Bob would do this, and she had no opportunity to object. Restatement 69. There was no acceptance by silence—Ann does not have to pay.
2. Ann agrees to sell and Bob agrees to buy between 400 and 600 tons of fertilizer in installments as ordered by Bob. Ann reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time without notice. If Bob refuses to perform, may Ann successfully sue him for breach of contract? Why or why not?
No. Ann's promise was not consideration. She did not restrict her future acts in any way.
6. Bob gave Ann a book. The book was valued at $20. Three days later, Ann meets Bob on the street and says, "Bob, I love the book you gave me. I'm going to pay you the $20 it cost you." Ann does not pay Bob the $20. May he successfully sue her for breach of contract?
No. There is no bargained for exchange here. Bob did not give her the book in exchange for her promise to pay, and her promise to pay was not exchanged for his giving the book. There's no consideration here to make her promise enforceable.
1. Bob desires to make a binding promise to his daughter, Ann. Being advised that a gratuitous promise is not binding, Bob writes out a false statement that Ann has sold him a car for $1,000, and he writes out a promise to pay Ann that amount. Before Bob pays the $1,000 to Ann, he dies, and Ann sues his estate for the $1,000. Will her claim be successful? Why or why not?
Not successful. There was no consideration here—no bargained for exchange.
3. Bob agrees to sell and Ann agrees to buy all the widgets that Bob's business produces in 2006. Is there consideration here? Why or why not?
There is consideration here. Bob must either sell all that he makes to Ann, or he must not make any widgets. If Bob makes any widgets, he must sell them to Ann, and she has promised to buy them all.
Bob lost his watch. He posted the following information on a community bulletin board: "Reward. I will pay $50 for the return of my watch lost yesterday on Main Street." Ann saw Bob's notice. She immediately sent Bob the following note: "Bob, I'm sorry that you lost your watch. I promise that I'll find it for you." Was a contract created here? Why or why not?
There is no contract. Reward offers are the "typical" kind of unilateral offer. Bob must perform to accept—his promise will not work. There is no doubt about what was required to accept.
Bob sends Ann the following e-mail: "Ann, I have been looking at your webpage. I want to buy 200 widgets at $1 per widget. I will need them by the end of the month. If that's acceptable, let me know." On the morning that Ann received the e-mail she called and left the following voicemail on Bob's machine. "Bob, I have received your request for 200 widgets. I will ship them out this afternoon. Thanks!" Ann shipped the widgets that afternoon. Bob received the widgets two days later. When was the contract between Ann and Bob created? Why?
This involves the sale of goods, so UCC §2-206 applies. That rule states that if an offer to make a contract is ambiguous it can be construed as inviting acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances. Here, Bob simply stated "let me know". When Ann phoned Bob stating that she would ship that afternoon, it's likely sufficient to show that she is recognizing a contract exists and accepted the offer in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances. If Bob did not limit the medium (e.g. the means used to communicate the acceptance) to a specific way, then responding the same way the offer was sent OR FASTER is generally appropriate. Calling may be as fast, or faster than e-mailing so calling would probably be sufficient. Also, UCC §2-206(1)(b) states that unless there's clear language indicating otherwise, a prompt promise to ship—or prompt shipment can also work as an acceptance.
Ann sends a letter to Bob stating the terms of a proposed contract. At the end of the letter, Ann writes the following: "You can accept this offer only by signing on the dotted line below." The next day, Ann receives a telegram from Bob stating, "I accept your offer!" Is there a contract? Why or why not?
This is not a contract. The offeror, Ann, required acceptance in a particular way, and Bob did not do the thing required to be a valid acceptance. The offeror is the master or the offer and can dictate the manner in which acceptance is to be made.
