quiz contracts

A charity and a landowner work out a transaction whereby it is believed that the landowner will be able to receive a large charitable deduction if he donates his farm to charity. But for the deduction, the transaction would be of no interest to the landowner and both parties know this. Unbeknownst to landowner, however, existing regulations barred charitable deductions of this kind. May landowner now avoid donating his farm? a. Yes. But only if landowner did not bear the risk of the mistake and it would be unconscionable to enforce the donation. b. No. Unilateral mistakes of this kind will never be excused. c. Yes. It would be unconscionable to make landowner donate his farm without receiving the expected benefit from the donation. d. No. Under promissory estoppel, assuming charity reasonably relied on landowner's promise he may not avoid performance. e. Yes. Mutual mistakes of this kind will always be excused.

a.

After class Sarah Student and Paula Pupil were talking in the hallway. Student mentions that she would be willing to sell her motorcycle to Pupil for $4,000. Ingrid Interloper overhears their conversation as she is coming out of a classroom. Because her car had recently broken down, Interloper was in dire need of transportation. Interloper quickly walks up to Student and says, "I'll take it and pay you $5,000!" Pupil, not wanting to miss out on a deal on a motorcycle, chimes in "No, I'll buy it! I accept!" To whom (if anyone) is Student obligated to sell her motorcycle? a. Pupil, because she was the person to whom Student directed the offer. b. Interloper, because she agreed to pay the highest price for the motorcycle. c. Interloper, because she was the first person to accept the offer. d. No one, because Student's offer has not been accepted. e. No one, because Student didn't make an offer so there was nothing that could be accepted.

a.

Aiden says to Bob "If you paint my fence, I promise to pay you $500." Bob replies that he'll paint the fence "if he feels like it." The next day Bob paints Aiden's entire fence for him. When he asks Aiden for the $500, Aiden refuses. Does Bob have a valid claim? a. Yes. Aiden's promise was for a unilateral contract, which was accepted when Bob completed the painting. b. No. Bob's reply was an illusory promise so there was no mutuality of obligation. c. No. Painting the fence was sham consideration. d. No Bob's reply was a rejection of Aiden's offer. e. Yes. Bob's reply coupled with the painting of the fence is reasonable acceptance under the circumstances.

a.

All first year law students at South Oklahoma College of Law, Phil, Kelsey, Jane, and Grant form a study group. The group meets every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon in the library to review notes from their classes and go over practice questions. On Mondays Kelsey distributes practice questions to each member of the study group. For the Thursday meeting, each member of the group is expected to draft an answer to the practice question and come ready to discuss their answer. The first two months of the study group are a huge success with every member coming prepared and working hard. After that, however, Phil starts coming to the meetings unprepared, failing to prepare answers to the practice questions and refusing to contribute to the group's discussion. Kelsey, Jane, and Grant become fed up with Phil's actions. Can they successfully sue Phil for breach of the study group's contract? a. No. There was no evidence of intent for there to be legal consequences attached to the group's arrangement. b. Yes. All the members agreed to the "rules" of the study group and followed them. c. No. Classmates can never enter into legally binding agreements. d. Yes. Phil continued to reap the benefits of the study group without contributing his fair share of the work. e. No. Two months is not long enough to establish an implied-in-fact contract.

a.

American Flights, Inc. is an airline company that frequently enters into contracts with the U.S. Government. In 2022, World War III breaks out. The U.S. Government asks American Flights to provide flights for U.S. troops to get to overseas military bases for "the duration of the war." American flights agrees to provide the flights "at cost" to the Government. Must the parties put their contract in writing to be enforceable? a. No. It is possible that the war may end within one year. b. No. Given the exigent circumstances created by the war, the writing requirement would be excused. c. No. Estoppel would excuse the lack of writing. d. Yes. World wars last longer than a year. e. Yes. The cost of the flights will clearly exceed $500.

a.

Belinda sold Alice her used washer and dryer for $1,000. Alice was unable to pay Belinda at the time so she gave Belinda a promissory note evidencing her debt of $1,000 to Belinda. Two weeks later, Alice promises to pay Belinda the $1,000 owed to her if Belinda rakes the leaves in Alice's yard. Assuming Belinda rakes the yard, is Alice's promise enforceable? a. Yes. Belinda's raking serves as valid consideration. b. No. Under the pre-existing duty rule Alice already owes Belinda the $1,000 so it cannot serve as consideration. c. Yes. But only if the $1,000 debt is barred by the statute of limitations or has been discharged in bankruptcy. d. No. There is no mutuality of obligation between Alice and Belinda. e. No. Alice's promise was not detrimental so it is not valid consideration.

a.

Carter Contractor is awarded the contract to build a dam for the city of Burlington. The signed, written contract specifies that Contractor will be paid $1,500,000 to build the dam. After initial construction begins, Contractor discovers that due to different construction occurring upstream from the project the dam will be more expensive to construct. After explaining the situation to the mayor of Burlington, the mayor orally promises to pay $500,000 extra upon completion of the dam. While not stated in the contract, it is contemplated that the erection of the dam will take three years and it does, in fact, take three years. Upon completion, the mayor refuses to pay the extra $500,000, and Contractor sues the city. Under traditional common law principles, what arguments could the city raise in response to Contractor's suit? a. Pre-existing duty rule. b. Statute of Frauds. c. Parol Evidence Rule. d. Pre-existing duty rule and Statute of Frauds. e. Pre-existing duty rule and Parol Evidence Rule.

a.

Ellen Employee has been employed at Big Company for 40 years. In consideration of Employee's previous service, Penny President, the president of Big Company, promises to pay Employee $200 per month when Employee retires. In reliance on the promise Employee retires early and forbears to work elsewhere for several years. Big Company pay the pension during this time but then later repudiates and stops payment. If Employee sues to enforce the pension, who wins? a. Employee. Employee's injurious reliance on the pension promise would result in promissory estoppel. b. Employee. Service at Big Company is sufficient consideration. c. Big Company. Employee's service to Big Company is past consideration. d. Big Company. Employee had a pre-existing duty to work for Big Company. e. Big Company. There is no mutuality of obligation.

a.

Frank Fitness is the owner of an athletic-wear company and is a well-known sports enthusiast. Wanting to raise the profile of his brand, Fitness decides to host the Fitness Games, a series of endurance-type athletic events. One day Fitness tells Debbie Designer, one of his clothing designers, the following :"You know, Debbie, there is nothing like exercise to keep one in shape. I bet if you started to work out now, you could be ready for the Games. In fact, I will pay you a bonus of $500 if you get in shape and compete in the Games." Debbie knew that Fitness was serious about his commitment to physical fitness, so on her way home from work she bought a new pair of sneakers and several exercise outfits. For the next 6 months Debbie works out at her local gym. One week before the Games is scheduled to be held Debbie tells Fitness about her purchases and new workout routine. Fitness replies: "I was only kidding." Can Debbie recover the $500 from Fitness? a. Yes. But only if Debbie competes in the Games. b. No. Fitness revoked his offer before Debbie competed in the Games. c. Yes. When Debbie purchased the shoes and clothing in reliance on Fitness's offer it restricted his right to revoke the bonus offer. d. No. It was not foreseeable that Debbie would buy new shoes and clothes and start working out. e. No. Once Fitness disclosed he was kidding it was no longer reasonable for Debbie to think he would pay her.

a.

In June, Molly Manufacturer and Robby Retailer agree that Manufacturer will supply, and Retailer will buy 35 laptops to be delivered on August 1, 2020. The parties have yet to reach agreement on the price because new shipping prices for the U.S. Postal Service were going to be released the end of July. As a result Manufacturer and Retailer agree to agree on the price and shipping costs after the new pricing is released. By the end of July, Manufacturer and Retailer cannot agree on a price. If Manufacturer goes ahead and ships the laptops to Retailer, does Retailer have to pay for them? a. Yes. The parties' had an intent to be bound at the time of agreement. b. No. The contract is too indefinite to be enforced. c. Yes. Retailer and Manufacturer are both "merchants." d. No. By not agreeing to price there is no consideration. e. Yes. The parties' conduct created a binding contract.

a.

Marilyn, who knows little about cars, inherited a white 1965 Ford Mustang. One day, in need of money, she took it to Tony's Used Car Lot and asked Tony if he would like to buy it. It was widely-known that Tony was an expert and collector of vintage cars. Tony looked at it carefully and gave it a run around the block. He offered her $450.00. Marilyn accepted the money and signed over the pink slip, which detailed the terms of the sale of the car. Marilyn later found out that the car was a collector's item worth $45,000. What is the best argument Marilyn can make to rescind the sale? a. Fraud due to Tony's expert knowledge and non-disclosure of the true value of the car. b. Unilateral mistake. c. Mutual mistake. d. Statute of Frauds. e. Promissory Estoppel.

a.

Scarlett and Rhett met in person and agreed orally on the purchase and sale of Scarlett's ancestral home, Tara. Rhett suggested that they put the agreement in writing. Scarlett balked, expressing her offense that Rhett would so distrust her and assuring Rhett that there was no need. Rhett agreed to leave things unwritten. When Scarlett later repudiates, what is Rhett's best argument that he should be able to enforce the contract? a. Equitable estoppel. b. Part performance exception. c. Admissions exception. d. Written confirmation exception. e. Restitution.

a.

Which of the following is NOT valid consideration? a. A speech. b. A bicycle. c. Swimming lessons. d. Mowing the lawn. e. Admiration.

e.

Wanting to make a binding gift and being aware of the doctrine of consideration, Father signs an agreement promising to give Son $500 a year for 5 years in return for which Son promises never to become a lawyer. Son has no legal training and has no interest in law, and is in fact a middle school math teacher. Is this a valid contract? a. Yes. Son's forbearance is valid consideration for Father's promise. b. No. Son had no intention of becoming a lawyer so there is no detriment on his behalf. c. Yes. Putting the agreement in writing evidenced an intent for there to be legal consequences. d. No. It is easy for Son to not become a lawyer so it is not an adequate exchange for $500 per year. e. No. Father's love and affection for Son is not valid consideration.

a.

Which of the following promises must be in writing to be enforceable? a. Bob promises to pay for the support of a 4-year-old child until the child becomes 21. b. Chandra pays Lance $600 for the option to purchase Lance's house, with the option contract lasting for 2 years. c. Kari and Gary, an engaged couple, orally agree that after the marriage they will live in Kari's house. In exchange Gary agrees to pay $20,000 to Kari. d. Supplier and Buyer originally had a signed, written contract for the purchase and sale of 20 bushels of apples at $50 per bushel. Supplier and Buyer subsequently modify their contract whereby Buyer will now only buy 2 bushels of apples at $50 per bushel. e. All of the above.

a.

Which of the following would NOT be considered acting as a "merchant" under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code? a. Brad Banker, a loan officer and New City Bank, when he buys fishing equipment. b. Sammy Salesperson, a salesperson at Mattress Queen, when he sells beds to customers at the store. c. Dan Dealer, a salesperson and manager at Hoover Motors, when he sells his personal car over the internet. d. Lucy Armstrong, the famous cyclist, when she sells her old bicycles. e. Frank Farmer when he sells his harvested crops to a local grocery store.

a.

Alan Agent with American Insurance Company contacts Otto Observer, who had been at the scene of a car accident. Agent asks Observer to execute a release in exchange for $200 because American Insurance Company wished to close its file. Observer has not made a claim and in fact believes that no valid claim exists, nonetheless, Agent still wants the release. Two weeks after Observer signed and returned the release to Agent he still has not been paid. If Observer sues, what is the result? a. No contract. Signing and mailing the release to Agent is not valid acceptance. b. Contract. Signing a document that Observer was not required to sign was a detriment. c. No contract. If Observer did not make a claim the release cannot be consideration. d. No contract. The car accident happened before Agent's promise to pay the $200. e. Contract. Signing the release in exchange for $200 was an adequate exchange.

b.

Father promised to give Daughter $17,000 for the purpose of enabling her to purchase her first house. In reliance on the promise, Daughter entered into an option contract with Sally Seller for the purpose of buying Seller's house. Daughter spent $400 of her own money to secure the option contract. Daughter also spent $1,550 in application fees to secure a mortgage to buy Seller's house. In applying for the mortgage, Daughter told the bank that she would be making a $17,000 down payment on the house. Father declines to furnish the $17,000 promised because he tells Daughter he does not like the house she wants to buy. Does Daughter have a valid claim against Father for breach of contract? a. No. Father's promise was a gift to Daughter and is not legally enforceable. b. Yes. Father's promise foreseeably induced substantial and definite acts of injurious reliance by Daughter. c. No. Because Daughter had not yet signed a contract with Seller to purchase the house, Daughter did not rely on Father's promise. d. Yes. Father knew Daughter was relying on his promise and did not object. e. No. Daughter's reliance on Father's promise was not foreseeable or reasonable.

b.

For the past three summers Harold Helpful always mows the yard of his next-door neighbor, Nancy Neighbor. If Neighbor is home when Helpful finishes mowing, she brings him a glass of lemonade and $20 and thanks him for his "good work". If Neighbor is not home when Helpful mows her yard she places $20 in an envelope and puts it in Helpful's mailbox the next day. In July, without any warning, Neighbor stops paying Helpful when he mows the yard. What is the best argument that Neighbor is legally required to pay for Helpful's mowing? a. There is a breach of an express contract. b. There is a breach of an implied-in-fact contract. c. There is a breach of an implied-in-law contract. d. There is a breach of a quasi-contract. e. There is a breach of a unilateral contract.

b.

Frank Farmer and Sayid Supplier enter into a signed written agreement where by Supplier agreed to sell and Farmer agreed to buy 31,000 tons of phosphate rock during the next calendar year (phosphate rock is commonly used in the production of agricultural fertilizers). The contract specified a price of $245 per ton. Farmer only accepted a portion of the 31,000 tons of phosphate Supplier delivered. When Supplier sued, Farmer's defense was that there was a usage of trade and course of dealing to the effect that "because of uncertain crop and weather conditions, farming practices, and government agricultural programs, quantity terms in contracts for material in the mixed fertilizer industry are merely projections to be adjusted according to market forces." Should the court consider Farmer's defense? a. No, a completely integrated writing cannot be varied or supplemented by parol evidence. b. Yes, under UCC 2-202 course of dealing and trade usage are admissible so long as they do not contradict the contract. You Answered c. No, if the suit is brought in a Williston 4-corners jurisdiction. d. Yes, but only if the suit is brought in a Corbin, facts and circumstances jurisdiction. e. No, under UCC 2-202 course of dealing and trade usage are not admissible in the case of a completely integrated writing such as this.

b.

Gretchen worked for a real estate company. For 3 years, the company has been trying to sell a run-down house on a steep hillside. On June 1, Mary, Gretchen's boss, tells Gretchen that she will pay her a $1,000 bonus if she can sell that specific hillside property by the end of the month. "I accept," Gretchen replies to Mary. Have the parties formed a binding contract? a. No. Mary did not make an offer capable of being accepted by Gretchen. b. No. The offer can only be accepted by performance, not a promise. c. Yes. Gretchen's acceptance was explicit and did not add any new terms to the offer. d. Yes. Objectively a reasonable person would interpret "I accept" to show an intent to be bound. e. Yes. The offer was made specifically to Gretchen, so she was the only one who could accept.

b.

Larry Landlord owns several rental properties surrounding South Oklahoma College of Law. He typically rents these houses to students attending South Oklahoma. In order to "drum up" some new tenants, Landlord hangs signs around the College of Law building offering to rent one particular house that was still vacant for $1,200 per month starting August 1. His flyer lists the address and specifications for the available house as well as a phone number to call. Within a week Landlord has signed a lease for his rental property. He goes to the College of Law and removes all of the signs he had hung up. Sandy Student, unaware that the signs have been removed, calls Landlord and accepts his offer to rent the house. When Landlord tells Student there are no more properties available to rent, Student sues. Who wins? a. Landlord. He did not have any properties left to rent so there was nothing for Student to accept. b. Student. She had no knowledge of the revocation before she accepted. c. Landlord. Ignorance of the law is no excuse so it is irrelevant that Student was unaware that the signs had been removed. d. Landlord. Removing the signs revoked the offer. e. Student. Because Landlord is a merchant, taking down the signs would not be sufficient action to revoke his offer.

b.

Patty asked Daniel whether Daniel would consider selling his lake house in Wisconsin to her. Daniel replied that if Patty made an offer, Daniel would consider it. Patty calls Daniel the next day and offers to buy the lake house for $350,000 but Daniel refuses to sell saying the price it too low. Patty then asks, "Will you accept $400,000?" Daniel answers, "I will not consider accepting anything less than $450,000." Patty said "Deal!" True or False: Daniel is contractually bound to sell Patty his house for $450,000. a. True b. False

b.

Sam and Joe communicate by electronic mail for the sale of bales of hay. On May 1, 2020, Sam set an e-mail to Joe offering to sell Joe 30 bales of hay, at $100 per bale, delivery to be made on May 30, 2020. In response, Joe sent Sam a purchase order on a printed form listing the same quantity, price and delivery time. The purchase order was not signed by Joe but carried Joe's rubber stamped name and address at the center top. When Joe repudiates, can Sam enforce the contract? a. Yes; the parties' correspondence clearly evidences an intent to be legally bound and includes the quantity. b. Yes; so long as Joe's stamped name and address was done with an intent to authenticate. c. Yes; the contract, by its terms, can be performed within one year. d. No; electronic communications cannot be used to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. e. No; the purchase order was not signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.

b.

Tammy Tenant wants to rent some storefront space for her new coffee shop. Tenant enters into an integrated written agreement with Leslie Landlord. The agreement provided, in part, that "all rental payment periods will start from the date Tenant takes possession of the office space." In a contract dispute with Landlord, Tenant offered evidence that prior to signing the writing the parties had agreed that Tenant's payments were to be deferred until Tenant's coffee shop started to show a profit. If the court determines that the agreement is only partially integrated, Tenant's evidence is admissible. True False

b.

Bobby Buyer, a sawmill operator, went to Sammy Seller, a Mobil dealer, and asked for oil that would be suitable for use in the sawmill's hydraulic system. When asked by Seller to describe the system, Buyer accurately described it. Seller checked with Mobil and suggested Ambex 810 oil. Buyer and Seller sign a written 3-year contract under which Buyer purchases and uses Ambex 810 oil. After two and one half years Buyer discovers that Ambex 810 was suitable for cars but was unsuitable for the sawmill's hydraulic system. Additionally, Buyer discovered that the Ambex 810 was also the cause of frequent breakdowns and production losses. On what theory could Buyer most successfully sue Seller? a. Breach of an express contract. b. Breach of implied-in-law contract. c. Breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. d. Breach of warranty of merchantability. e. Breach of warranty of title.

c.

Don Peterson made a living for many years writing books and speaking against the federal income tax. On the live Molly Miller radio show one night, Molly ridiculed Don's claim that "nothing in the Internal Revenue Code says anybody is legally required to pay the tax." Don replied, "if anybody calls this station and cites any section of this code saying an individual is required to file a tax return, I'll pay them $1,000." Lilah Law Student phoned the television station twenty minutes later, citing eight sections of the code making the income tax mandatory. She claims $1,000 in an action against Don. Does she get it? a. No. Don did not make the offer to Lilah, specifically, therefore she cannot accept. b. No. Don did not actually intend to pay the money. c. Yes. Lilah's correct response was acceptance of Don's offer. d. No. Lilah response must be in writing to be enforceable. e. Yes. So long as Lilah subjectively believed Don was serious.

c.

Joan and Greg are avid golfers. When out golfing one day the two friends hatch an idea to build a golf course of their own. After discussing and ultimately agreeing to all of the essential terms, Joan and Greg sign a written contract to jointly build, own and operate a golf course; being equal partners in their venture. After a year of making preparations for their golf course, Joan and Greg are having second thoughts and are considering rescinding their contract and abandoning the project. Cindy, who owns nearby land that she thinks will rise in value if the golf course is built, promises to pay $3,000 to each of Joan and Greg if they promise to continue with their golf course project. Joan and Greg agree. Is Cindy's promise legally binding? a. No contract. Individuals do not have a right to breach a contract so it cannot serve as consideration. b. No contract. Cindy is a third party and cannot create a contractual relationship with Joan and Greg. c. Contract. Joan and Greg's forbearance constitutes a detriment supporting Cindy's promise to pay. d. Contract. If Joan and Greg rely on Cindy's promise and continue the venture then Cindy's promise is enforceable under promissory estoppel. e. No contract. Joan and Greg formed their contract before Cindy's promise so it is invalid as past consideration.

c.

Lucy Lawfirm sends an employment contract to Adam Attorney specifying that Attorney would begin work for Lawfirm as one of the firm's newest associates on January 1 at a salary of $75,000 per year. The cover letter on the contract stated the following: "Sign both copies of the contract and keep one for your records and send the other back to me." Lawfirm had already signed both copies of the contract. Attorney signed both contracts but when he addressed the envelope to send a copy to Lawfirm he misspelled the street name in the address. As a result of the mistake, when Attorney mails the contract it takes an extra 2 weeks for the letter to get to Lawfirm. When (if at all) was there acceptance? a. Upon Attorney signing the contract. b. Upon Lawfirm signing the contract. c. Upon Lawfirm's receipt of the signed contract. d. No acceptance at all if the address was incorrect. e. Upon Attorney placing the signed contract in the mail.

c.

Martha and Paula had been college roommates and teammates on the Shaner University track team. A few days after Paula had given birth to her first child, Martha called to congratulate her. On the phone she learns that the baby's name is Caroline Martha Smith. Martha says to Paula, "in consideration of the fact that you have named your child after me, I promise to pay $5,000 every month into a college fund for baby Caroline until she turns 18." After one year Martha stops paying. Can Paula sue to enforce Martha's promise? a. No, naming a child in not sufficient consideration. b. No, the $5,000 was going into a college fund for Caroline, not Paula, so she has no direct interest in the contract. c. No, Martha's promise did not induce the naming of the child. d. No, naming a child is nominal consideration in comparison to paying $5,000 each month for 18 years. e. No, Martha's promise is illusory and not enforceable.

c.

Pamela received a promotion letter in the mail offering her a subscription to the New Town Times newspaper, the fee for which is $30.00 per year. The letter concluded, "this offer to be accepted if we do not hear from you otherwise within ten (10) days." Pamela threw the letter away and did nothing. Is she legally obligated to pay the subscription fee? a. Yes. She was aware of the expectation of compensation by New Town Times when they send her the newspaper. b. Yes. It would be unjust enrichment to let Pamela keep the newspapers for free. c. No. Pamela's silence is not intended as acceptance of the offer. d. No. Throwing the letter away was a rejection of the offer. e. No. So long as Pamela calls New Town to revoke the offer she is not obligated to pay.

c.

Peter Producer, a successful television producer had the idea for a new television series based on the life stories of the contestants from his show Oklahoma Idol (a reality television show where ordinary people compete for a chance to win a recordings contract with a major music label). Peter thought that a television series about the lives of the losing contestants would be an instant hit. Peter met with the contestants during a show rehearsal from the current season. He told them he would pay $10,000 for the exclusive use of each person's life story if he found it suitable for use in the new series. Ten contestants agreed to his proposal and Peter tape-recorded interviews with them. Ultimately, Peter decided to concentrate on the story from only one of the contestants. If the other nine contestants bring an action against him what is the result? a. Contract. A person's tape-recorded life story is sufficient consideration. b. Contract. Peter and the contestants intended to be bound. c.No contract. Peter's promise to pay the contestants $10,000 was illusory. d.No contract. The life stories were past consideration. e. No contract. A person's tape-recorded life story is inadequate consideration.

c.

Sally Seller and Barbara Buyer entered into a detailed written agreement for the purchase and sale of Seller's house. The writing contained a merger/integration clause, providing that the agreement was the final and complete agreement of the parties. Buyer eventually backed out of the agreement citing her inability to obtain a mortgage from the bank. Seller sues Buyer for breach of contract. At trial, Buyer wants to proffer evidence to the effect that Seller and Buyer had agreed during negotiations that Buyer would have a unilateral right to terminate the contract if she was unable to secure a mortgage. Is this evidence admissible? a. No, assuming the written agreement was signed by Buyer. b. Yes, the evidence is being used to supplement, not contradict, the writing. c. No, the writing is completely integrated. d. Yes, the court will allow all evidence at trial so it can determine the true intentions of the parties. e. No, parol evidence such as this is never allowed to be admitted at trial.

c.

Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to buy 100 pairs of shoes. All of the material terms are agreed on except that the parties agree to agree on the price at a later date. The parties evidence their agreement in a signed, written document. One month later, Buyer, because of a change in market conditions, refuses to engage in negotiations with Seller regarding the price of the shoes. If Seller sues, how will the court rule? a. No contract. Agreements to agree are never enforceable. b. Contract. Buyer's failure to negotiate the price is bad faith. c. Contract. As long as the parties had an intent to be bound, the only term that must be certain to form a contract is quantity. d. No contract. The parties will not be bound until they agree on a price (which has not yet happened). e. No contract. The parties could not have an intent to be bound until they agreed on a price.

c.

Wilma Writer was a famous children's author. One day as she sat down to work on her next book she realized that all of her writing supplies were depleted. On May 1 she sent a letter to Buntington's, a stationary supplier, requesting a catalog of supplies and prices. On May 15 she received the company catalog and, in addition, Buntington's enclosed a form letter that stated: "Available to our first-time customers: standard white typing-quality paper at $15 per ream. Ready for immediate delivery. Five (5) ream minimum. Reduced price with orders of 15 reams or more." Writer wrote back on May 16, "I accept your offer. Please ship 10 reams of paper and deliver by June 1." On May 20, Buntington's sent a letter to Writer stating: "Confirming shipment of 15 reams of paper at a special price of $12 per ream, delivery to take place as requested." On June 1, Writer received a delivery of 15 reams of paper together with an invoice for $180 plus shipping charges. Writer is livid. She does not need so much paper nor can she afford it. Is Writer legally obligated to pay Buntington's for the paper? a. Yes. Writer accepted Buntington's offer when she sent her May 16 letter ordering the paper. b. No. Under the mirror image rule because Writer's May 16 letter and Buntington's May 20 letter do not contain identical terms there is no contract. c. No. Because the price and quantity of paper ordered differ in the two letters, there is not a meeting of the minds. d. No. If Writer is not a first-time customer, then the May 15 offer by Buntington's was not directed to her to be able to accept. e. Yes. They are both merchants under UCC 2-104 so there is a contract.

c.

Carl and Allen own adjoining properties. The two men had discussed at length on several occasions building a brick wall to separate their yards. Having construction experience, Carl said he would build the wall if Allen would pay for one-half of the supplies. Allen never replied to Carl's proposal. Over the next several weeks, Allen observed Carl having bricks and other supplies delivered to the properties and watched as Carl built the wall along the adjoining property line. Once done, Carl gave Allen a detailed invoice of the costs and requested that he pay Carl one-half of the total cost. Allen refused. If Carl sues for breach of contract to recover the value of one-half of the brick wall built upon the property line of Carl and Allen's properties, will he be successful? a. No. Silence can never be acceptance. b. Yes. Silence is always a valid way to accept. c. No. Silence is only acceptance when the parties have an established pattern of accepting in this manner; which Allen and Carl do not. d. Yes. Silence coupled with the conveyance of valuable service rendered with the expectation of payment can be acceptance. e. No. Because Allen and Carl are neighbors, Carl cannot expect Allen to pay for his half of the wall.

d.

David wrote to Patrick offering a brokerage franchise for two years. David's signed letter outlined all of the terms and conditions of the franchise agreement with reasonable certainty. Patrick orally accepted David's offer. In an action by Patrick for breach of contract, may David successfully raise the Statute of Frauds as a defense? a. Yes. The agreement, by its terms, exceeds one year. b. Yes. Patrick orally accepted the offer so there is no signed writing. c. No. The brokerage franchise could end within one year, thus the Statute of Frauds does not apply. d. No. David's letter satisfies the Statute of Frauds. e. No. The doctrine of restitution will mitigate the Statute of Frauds defense.

d.

Holly Host has been trying for years to get Sally Superstar to appear on her television talk show, "Real Talk with Holly." On June 1, 2020, Host calls Superstar to try to convince her to appear on the show. At the end of their conversation, Superstar promises to appear on Host's talk show for a standard appearance fee. Because of her busy schedule, however, Superstar's 1-hour appearance will have to be on July 1, 2021. The next day Host sends Superstar a confirmation e-mail with an attachment containing a signed copy of the show's standard form "Guest Appearance Agreement" laying out the details of the appearance. Superstar calls Host to tell her she received the agreement and "it looks good to me", but never signs or returns anything to Host. If Superstar ends up backing out of the appearance, can Host successfully bring suit? a. Yes. Superstar will only be appearing for one hour, so a writing is not required. b. Yes. Host detrimentally relied on Superstar's promise. c. Yes. Host signed the Guest Appearance Agreement which contained all material terms. d. No. Superstar's promise cannot be performed within one year, so it must be in a sufficient writing to be enforceable. e. No. Superstar's promise was illusory.

d.

In May, Jaime hires Saul to manage her coffee shop. Saul will get paid $900 per week and work for a one-year term to commence August 1. In July, Jaime learns that a competing coffee shop is going to open across the street. Not wanting to lose Saul, an experienced barista and store manager, to a competitor, Jaime and Saul agree to modify the agreement, raising his salary to $1,000 per week. Under the modification, Saul's duties at the coffee shop remained the same. What salary is Saul legally entitled to receive? a. $1,000. Under UCC 2-209, no new consideration is needed to make an enforceable modification. b. $900. The court will enforce the parties' original agreement because objectively that was the price to which they intended to be bound. c. $1,000. Jaime and Saul both agreed to the modification in good faith. d. $900. Saul has not incurred a detriment in exchange for the additional $100 per week. e. Nothing. The lack of consideration invalidated the parties' agreement.

d.

Mitchum Properties Co. ("Mitchum") leased a store in its shopping center to Grace's Food Stores, Inc. ("Grace's") for 20 years. Under their written contract, rent was to be $12,000 per month plus 3% of Grace's revenues at the store in excess of $375,000. After seven years, during which Grace's regularly paid substantial rent as a percentage of revenues, Grace's opened a new store one mile away. It shut down operations at Mitchum's shopping center, stops paying the base rent of $12,000 per month and left the store empty. If Mitchum sues, what law would the court apply in resolving the dispute? a. Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG). b. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Article 2. c. Restatement (Second) of Contracts. d. Common law. e. All of the above.

d.

New City is being plagued by a serial graffiti artist who is spray-painting pictures on the sides of all of the buildings downtown. On May 26, 2017, the city publishes a reward offer in the local newspaper for a $500 reward for any information that leads to the apprehension and conviction of the culprit responsible for the graffiti. On July 10, 2017, the reward is raised to $1,000. By January 1, 2018, the graffiti in New City had suddenly stopped. However, in January 2020, Joe Detective catches the person who was responsible for the graffiti and the person is convicted in March for that crime. If Detective seeks to recover the $1,000 reward, what is the best argument New City could make that it doesn't have to pay Joe Detective? a. This was a bilateral contract so the only way Detective could have accepted was with a reciprocal promise to the city (which he never gave). b. Offers cannot be amended so the change from $500 to $1,000 invalidated the reward offer. c. Reward offers are never enforceable because they violate public policy. d. During the time between when the offer was published and the apprehension and conviction of the graffiti artist the offer of New City lapsed and was not able to be accepted. e. Detective can only recover the $500 reward because the $1,000 reward was a counteroffer.

d.

Olivia Owner owns and runs the Up Late Diner, a 24-hour diner in New City. Wanting to do some improvements to the restaurant, Owner goes to Tiles by Tina ("Tiles") to look at some new flooring options. The salesperson at Tiles points Owner to a section of the store and says: "These are the most durable tiles we sell. They won't fade or change color and if any crack we'll replace them for free." Owner decides to go with the tiles recommended by the salesperson and signed a written contract with Tiles for the flooring and installation. Shortly after installation, however, the tiles began to yellow and a few of them start to crack. When Owner asks for someone at Tiles to come replace the yellowing, cracked flooring, they refuse. What claim(s) could Owner bring in a lawsuit against Tiles? Assume the UCC applies. a. Breach of warranty of merchantability. b. Breach of express warranty. c. Breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. d. Breach of express warranty and breach of warranty of merchantability. e. None of the above.

d.

Phoenix Suns were expecting to receive Austin Rivers and two role players from the Memphis Grizzlies, one of whom they thought was Dillon Brooks. Except that's not what Memphis had in mind. They wanted to trade former Nets player MarShon Brooks, and when that came to light, the whole deal started to crumble. The Phoenix Suns had its heart set on Dillon but the Grizzlies were not willing to budge. The difference between the two Brooks is stark. Dillon is 22 years old and in just his second year in the league, while MarShon is a journeyman who has bounced around and spent multiple years playing overseas." If the Suns file suit to enforce the trade, what is the best response the Grizzlies have to the Suns' suit? a. Statute of Frauds. b. Breach of Warranty. c. Unilateral Mistake. d. Mutual Mistake. e. Fraud.

d.

When Lola Lawstudent is accepted to law school she calls her grandmother, Gretchen Grandma, to tell her the good news. In response, Grandma promises to throw Lawstudent, a huge party when she finishes law school as a graduation present. Lawstudent studies hard in law school and graduates three years later in the top of her class. If Grandma now refuses to throw the party, could Lawstudent sue? a. No. Graduating law school does not directly benefit Grandma and thus cannot serve as valid consideration. b. No. Grandma's love and affection for her granddaughter is not valid consideration. c. No. Promises between family members are never enforceable because they lack an intent to be legally bound. d. No. The party was intended as a gift conditioned on completing law school and thus lacks consideration. e. No. Studying hard and finishing law school was beneficial to Lawstudent so it cannot serve as consideration.

d.

Which of the following transactions would be governed by the Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)? A. Susan Cyclist sells her old bicycle at a garage sale. B. Carrie Customer buys groceries at Lots-of-Food Groceries. C. Tommy Traveler exchanges his U.S. dollars for Euros at the airport's exchange kiosk before leaving for vacation in Greece. D. All of the above. E. Only A. and B.

d.

3T, Inc. ("3T") manufactures and sells thermostats. Aqua Corporation ("Aqua") makes hot and cold water dispensers, which it leases to its customers. Aqua wanted to purchase thermostats from 3T for use in its water dispensers. When Aqua made a purchase of thermostats from 3T, it sent a purchase order for 250 thermostats at a price of $50 per thermostat, which also contained, in small type, various "conditions." In particular, Aqua's purchase order stated that (i) all disputes shall be subject to mandatory, binding arbitration, and (ii) all warranties provided by law or equity shall be applicable to the sale. Following receipt of the order, 3T prepared and sent an "Acknowledgement" form containing the following language in small type: "This will acknowledge receipt of Buyer's order and state Seller's willingness to sell the goods ordered but only upon the terms and conditions set forth herein and on the reverse side hereof. Buyer shall be deemed to have accepted the terms of this Acknowledgement Form unless objection is sent within ten (10) days of the receipt hereof, and all subsequent action shall be pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Acknowledgement Form only; any additional or different terms are hereby objected to and shall not be binding upon the parties unless specifically agreed to in writing by seller." On the reverse side of 3T's Acknowledgement Form was a provision disclaiming all warranties "including the warranty of merchantability and any implied or express warranties." The Acknowledgement Form was silent as to dispute resolution. Which terms (if any) are part of the parties' contract? a. 250 thermostats, $50 per thermostat price. b. 250 thermostats, $50 per thermostat price, arbitration. c. 250 thermostats, $50 per thermostat price, arbitration, warranties. d. 250 thermostats, $50 per thermostat price, no warranties. e. None, there is no contract here because the Acknowledgement Form was a counteroffer that has not yet been accepted.

e.

Bob Boss says to Francis Foreman, "If you agree to work for me for one year as the foreman of my plant I will pay you a fair share of the profits." Foreman replies, "I accept. See you on Monday!" Do the parties have a contract? a. No contract. A fair share of the profits is inadequate consideration. b. Contract. Foreman's response was a reasonable way to accept under the circumstances. c. No contract. Foreman could only accept through performance (i.e., showing up to work). d. Contract. Output contracts like this one are enforceable. e. No contract. The agreement is too indefinite to be enforced.

e.

Builders contracted to build a stadium for the University of Football according to architectural plans it had prepared. When the stadium's steel frame was up, Builders learned that the site for the stadium was a flood plain. As a result, the frame for the stadium would have to be reinforced so it wouldn't sink into the ground when it rained. Builders informed the University that it would be more expensive to build the stadium and informed the University that it would walk off the job, taking all copies of the plans, unless the price was increased by 50%. Preferring to submit than to incur the expenses of salvaging the operation, the University agreed. Builders completed the stadium, but the University then paid only the original contract price. Builders then filed suit for the additional 50% in a Restatement-following jurisdiction. What additional fact would be beneficial to University in defending against a suit for the additional 50% price increase? a. The flood plain classification for the property was a matter of public record. b. Industry customs dictate that a contractor should bear the risk of unforeseen changes in land conditions. c. Reinforcing the steel frame only cost Builders a 30% increase. d. Builders knew of the flood plain classification at the time of contracting. e. All of the above.

e.

Harry Homeowner and Bob Builder enter into a written agreement where Builder agrees to build a split-level tree house for Homeowner, and Homeowner promises to pay $16,000. The agreement contained blue prints detailing the specifications for the tree house. While building the tree house Builder, without consulting Homeowner, decides to make a few additional "improvements" to the specifications laid out in the original blue prints. After completion, Builder sends Homeowner a bill for $20,000, specifying that the additional $4,000 is to cover the new additions. If Homeowner refuses to pay the additional $4,000 and Builder sues, who wins? a. Builder. Good faith modifications such as this one do not need new consideration to be binding. b. Builder. Homeowner's silence was assent to the modification. c. Builder. It would be unjust enrichment to let Homeowner keep the additions to the tree house for free. d. Homeowner. Because the original contract was in writing, any modification also needed to be in writing. e. Homeowner. The modification lacked mutual assent and was officiously conferred.

e.

John says to David, "in consideration of the fact that you are not as wealthy as your brothers, I promise to pay you $5,000." David replies, "Thank you so much!" Is this a legally enforceable promise? a. No. Love and affection is not valid consideration. b. Yes. But only if David is actually not as wealthy as his brothers. c. Yes. David is relying on John's promise to pay the money. d. Yes. There is a detriment to John in paying the money to David. e. No. Although John stated the motive for the promise, there is no detriment by David.

e.

Melanie Carter was looking through the Sunday newspaper and saw the following advertisement by The Rare Bookstore: "Monday 9 A.M. Sharp; 5 original editions of classic Charles Dickens books; $100 each or best offer." Melanie went to The Rare Bookstore the next day with her checkbook in hand and told the owner "I'll take one of the original Charles Dickens books." Does Melanie have an enforceable contract? a. No. Ads can never be offers. b. No. Melanie's acceptance of the offer was not in writing. c. No. The contract fails for indefiniteness. d. No. Acceptance was not identical to the offer. e. No. The ad was not clear, definite and left nothing open for negotiation.

e.

On April 1, 2020, Barry sent a letter to Margaret offering to sell his estate for $1,500,000, "this offer to remain open until 10:00 p.m. Friday, April 21." During the evening of April 20, Margaret decided to accept the offer. She wrote "I accept" on Barry's letter and signed it. On the afternoon of April 21, Margaret went to Barry's home. When Barry answered the door, Margaret handed Barry the signed letter and announced she had come to buy the estate. Barry replied, "Too late!" It turns out that Barry had sold the property to Jack the previous week and had sent Margaret a letter revoking the offer, but the letter never reached Margaret. Did Margaret accept the offer? a. Yes. Under the Mailbox Rule Margaret's acceptance was effective when she signed Barry's letter. b. No. Barry revocation was effective when he put his revocation letter in the mail. c.No. Selling the property to Jack was conduct revoking Barry's offer. d. Yes. Under the firm offer rule (UCC 2-205) Barry could not revoke his offer until after 10:00 p.m. Friday. e. Yes. Handing Barry the signed letter and stating that she had come to buy the estate is a reasonable means of accepting Barry's offer.

e.

On September 6, Greg and Marcia entered into a written agreement for the purchase of a new computer and printer for Greg's home office. The written agreement states that the writing is "intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement." On September 7, Greg and Marcia orally agree that Greg may try out the computer and printer for a week and, if unsatisfied, Greg could return it for a full refund. Two days after receiving the computer and printer, Greg calls Marcia and tells her he has changed his mind and wants to return the itmes for a full refund. Marcia refuses and Greg sues. Which argument could Marcia successfully raise in response to Greg's suit? a. The Parol Evidence Rule bars the oral refund agreement between Marcia and Greg. b. The oral refund agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration. c. The writing is intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the parties' agreement and thus the oral refund agreement is not admissible under UCC 2-202(b). d. The oral refund agreement is unenforceable because it is too indefinite. e. None of the above.

e.

On her 21st birthday Niece received the following letter from her Aunt: "I promise to pay you $6,000 if you refrain from drinking and driving for the rest of my life." Niece writes back to her Aunt and assented to the terms of her letter. Niece does not drink and drive. Upon Aunt's death Niece seeks to recover the $6,000 from Aunt's estate. What is the best argument that Aunt's estate can make against the enforcement of Aunt's promise? a. That the exchange was illegal and unenforceable. b. That the Aunt's promise was illusory. c. That the letter was too indefinite to be enforceable. d. That the Aunt's death terminated Niece's power of acceptance e. That there was insufficient consideration.

e.

Paul has been trying to sell his farm, Stoneacre, for three years. Realizing that it may be more difficult than he thought to sell the property on his own he hires Annie Agent. Paul orally promises to pay Agent $10,000 when Agent secures a buyer for Stoneacre. It takes Agent 18 months to sell the property for Paul, but she is ultimately successful. When Agent tries to collect the $10,000 commission from Paul, he refuses because "it took her too long." If Agent sues, what is Paul's best defense? a. His promise needed to be in writing to be enforceable because it took Agent over a year to complete the sale. b. His promise needed to be in writing to be enforceable because it involved the sale of land. c. His promise needed to be in writing to be enforceable because it was for over $500. d. His promise was for a unilateral contract and he revoked his offer. e. None of the above.

e.

Sammy Sooner, a die-hard Oklahoma fan, calls Paul Painter to get an estimate on having the exterior of his house repainted crimson and cream. Painter comes out to Sooner's house to take a look at the project and later that day e-mails Sooner an invoice for the cost of the painting job. Painter also calls Sooner and says, "I just sent you an invoice detailing the cost and timing for painting your house. If everything looks good to you, just let me know and we can get started right away on the job." Assuming Painter made a legal offer, how could Sammy accept this offer? a. Calling Painter and telling him he's hired and can start the job right away. b. Signing the bottom of the invoice and sending it back to Painter. c. Sending an e-mail to Painter that Sooner would like him to proceed with the painting job as described in the invoice. d. Calling Painter and telling him he's hired and follow up their conversation with sending the signed invoice to Painter. e. All of the above.

e.

Samuel and Molly are both collectors of antique cars. Samuel decides to sell one of his refurbished cars to Molly and in a signed written contract the two agree to buy and sell a specific antique car for $30,000. Contemporaneously, they orally agree that Molly may keep her vintage motorcycle in Samuel's garage for 1 year in return for Molly's promise to pay $150 per month. When Molly goes to drop off the motorcycle, Samuel refuses to let her park it in the garage unless he pays her $200 per month. Molly sues for breach of contract. At trial, Samuel moves to exclude the oral agreement with Molly based on the Parol Evidence Rule. How should the court rule? Assume Common Law applies. a. The evidence is admissible. The contemporaneous oral agreement is not parol evidence and thus the Parol Evidence Rule doesn't apply. b. The evidence is excluded. The written contract for the sale of the car is completely integrated. c. The evidence is admissible. The contemporaneous oral agreement is only supplementing and not contradicting the written agreement. d. The evidence is excluded. Under the Statute of Frauds, the contemporaneous oral agreement must be in writing to be enforceable. e. The evidence is admissible. The contemporaneous oral agreement is supported by separate consideration and meets the collateral matter exception.

e.

Trash Collection, Inc. ("Trash") has been providing the City of Newport with refuse-collection services under a five-year, signed, written contract. The contract provided, among other things, that Trash would receive $137,000 per year in return for collecting and removing all combustible and noncombustible waste material generated within "city limits". In year two of the contract the City of Newport annexed a neighboring town, Small Town, thereby doubling the dwellings within the new city limits of Newport. As a result of the increase in the size of Newport's population, Trash would have to double its workforce to collect all of the waste material under the contract, causing it to go bankrupt. At trial Newport and Trash disagree over whether "city limits" is based on the city limits at the time the contract was formed or whether it takes into account the new annexation. If the court determines that "city limits" is ambiguous, what evidence (if any) should it consider in resolving the dispute? a. The contract. b. Trash and Newport's negotiating history. c. Industry custom. d. City and state regulations. e. All of the above.

e.

Which of the following is a legal offer? a. Mabel writes to Bill, "Will you sell me your property on Rockledge Drive for $50,000?" b. Sally sends a fax to Bill stating, "We quote you Hungarian flour $35.40 per barrel, car lots only. We would suggest your using fax to order as prices are rapidly advancing that they may be beyond reach before a letter would reach us." c. Marcia telling a car salesman, "I am interested in buying a reasonably priced, 4-door sedan from your dealership." d. Stan sees the following notice in the newspaper: "For Sale. Riding lawnmowers at a discount. $500-$1,500, or best offer." e. None of the above.

e.

Xavier Riddle, a salesman for Boat Builders, Inc., visited Darlene Doctor, a physician, at her office and attempted to sell her their standard 6-person sailboat for $28,000. Doctor said she would think about it for a week or two before deciding. Xavier falsely reported to his manager at Boat Builders that an oral agreement was reached and so Boat Builders sent a written confirmation of the alleged sale to Doctor. Doctor, annoyed by the letter from Boat Builders, ripped up the paper and threw it in the wastebasket. A month later, Boat Builders deliverers the boat. Doctor refuses to take delivery and Boat Builders sues. Doctor raises the Statute of Frauds as a defense. Which exception could Boat Builders successfully use? a. The written confirmation exception under UCC 2-201(2). b. The admissions exception under UCC 2-201(3)(b). c. Restitution. d. The specially manufactured exception under UCC 2-201(3)(a). e. None of the above.

e.