Real Mid Term 2

Hobbs v.Massasoit Whip Co.

Silence as Acceptance

In Wooley v Hoffman-La Roche, the court determined that an employee manual could create legal contractual obligations so that a company could not terminate an employee at any time for any reason (or no reason) without incurring liability to the employee.

True

Normally, a contract requires a valid offer and acceptance supported by valid consideration.

True

Normally, employment is "at will" meaning an employee can quit or be fired at any time for any reason or no reason.

True

Suppose that Professor Osborn agrees to help raise financing for a proposed Redlands Casino & Spa and to be the project's financial advisor. He contacts many potential investors in the project, but none of them ultimately participate. Nonetheless, if the circumstances are like those in Venturi & Co. v. Pacific Malibu Development Corp., Osborn might still be entitled to compensation.

True

The United States is suing Google for antitrust law violations.

True

The case Hamer v. Sidway illustrates that giving up a legal right to do something can be consideration to support contract formation.

True

To be "estopped" means to be prohibited from denying now the validity of a promise you made before.

True

Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.

Unilateral Contract and At-Will Employment

In Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc., the court held that a dance instructor's high praise of a student's potential as a dancer

may be treated as a misstatement on which a claim of fraud could be based.

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store

Advertisements as Offers

If there is a bank robbery and several people claim a reward leading to the arrest and conviction of the robbers, according to Denney v. Reppert, which of the following will be eligible for the reward or some share of it.

An off-duty police officer from another jurisdiction who helped with the arrest

Adhesion contracts are generally contracts related to

Contracts drafted by a dominant party and presented to a weaker party on a take it or leave it basis.

A forbearance cannot be legally sufficient consideration if providing it is good for you, as shown in Hamer v. Sidway.

False

CISG means Contracts in Selling Goods, which is a set of form contracts adopted by merchants in the United States and commonly used in transactions within the United States.

False

In EBWS v Britly, the court whose opinion is excerpted in your textbook ruled that it was appropriate for a contractor to have to pay for the milk a creamery had planned to purchase and the wages it had planned to pay employees when the contractor had to make repairs to the creamery it had contracted to build, causing a delay in operations so that the milk could not be used and the employees did not have work to do due to the delay caused by construction defects.

False

In Lucy v. Zehmer a land transaction was negotiated. The specific circumstances of the contract negotiation were formal, taking place in a mortgage lender's office, a title company's conference room, and a lawyer's office, during normal business hours.

False

In Reed v. King, a court ruled that a buyer of a house that had been the site of homicides could not avoid the contract, since a seller has no duty to disclose something that a buyer could discover through ordinary due diligence, especially something that is not related to the structural condition of the house.

False

In Shirley MacLaine v. Twentieth Century Fox, the court whose opinion you were assigned ruled the actor MacLain was NOT entitled to the contracted fee of $750,000 for appearing in a musical movie production that was cancelled because she did not mitigate her damages when she turned down the chance to appear in a Western-style movie at the same rate from the same studio.

False

In SouthTrust Bank v. Williams, the court ruled that a bank could not unilaterally impose an arbitration clause on customers without their express consent, because the UCC does not allow the imposition of material terms by one party on another without their affirmative consent.

False

Mr. Zehmer did NOT have to sell Ferguson Farm to Mr. Lucy because the circumstances indicated he did not intend to enter into a contract.

False

Non-compete agreements are unenforceable everywhere in the United States because they are always contrary to public policy as restraints on trade.

False

Normally, according to Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, newspaper ads are treated as offers, giving potential buyers a power of acceptance.

False

Normally, as described in Hobbs v. Massoit, silence is legally acceptance when someone receives unordered goods and does not return or object to them.

False

The purchasers in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. were interior decorators in Beverly Hills who bought furniture for the homes of affluent celebrities.

False

UCC means Uniform Contract Clauses, which provides a detailed template of obligatory, basic terms for all sales contracts.

False

Usury is the crime of using others as prostitutes for one's own economic gain, and criminals engaged in human trafficking (compelling people to be prostitutes) are therefore usually charged with the crime of usury.

False

Roger's Backhoe Service, Inc. v. Nichols

Implied Contract

SouthTrust Bank v. Williams

Mutuality of Contract: Unilateral Contract

Your book identifies and discusses six types of damages available in contract cases, including punitive damages which are uncommon in contract cases. The other five types of contract damages identified in your textbook are:

Nominal Damages, Compensatory Damages, Consequential Damages, Incidental Damages, Liquidated Damages (Punitive)

Lucy v. Zehmer

Objective Intention

Your textbook describes three common equitable Remedies including which of the following (mark all that apply):

Recession, Specific Performance, Restitution

Professor Hutchens wanted to buy a surge protector to protect the hydroponic growing equipment used in his marijuana operation. He calls a local firm that says their best surge protector will cost "four twenty." Hutchens asks that ten of them be delivered immediately. Later, he is billed $420 for each surge protector, which he had imagined would only cost $4.20 apiece. If Hutchens wants to avoid paying for the surge protectors when sued by their seller, based on Konic International corp. v. Spokane Computer Services, his best approach will be to argue that

The misunderstanding about the price was a mutual mistake so that no contract was formed.

A quasi-contract is not a contract at all, according to your textbook.

True

According to your textbook, children (not of legal age of majority, aka Infants in the eyes of the law) may generally disaffirm their contracts up to majority and within a reasonable time afterward, but the rule is subject to some exceptions and complications.

True

According to your textbook, exclusive dealing agreements, needs contracts, and outputs contracts are not treated as illusory.

True

According to your textbook, if a person is so drunk that he has no awareness of his acts, and if the other person knows this, there is no contract.

True

According to your textbook, if a promisor gives an illusory promise, he or she gives no consideration and no contract is formed.

True

According to your textbook, the two fundamental sources of contract law are (1) the common law as developed in the state courts and as summarized in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and (2) the UCC.

True

California courts typically refuse to enforce noncompete agreements.

True

Courts are not generally concerned with the economic adequacy of the consideration but instead with whether it is present.

True

Equitable remedies are treated differently than legal remedies in common law history, and equitable remedies are generally available where there is no adequate legal remedy.

True

In Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, the court concluded that a contract would not be enforced because it related to a business involved in making and selling drug paraphernalia.

True

In Gross v. Diehl Specialties International, the court ruled a modified employment agreement was not an enforceable contract when a key employee for the company that made Vitamite milk substitute agreed to new terms without their being new consideration.

True

In Hobbs v. Massoit Whip Co, silence was deemed a legal acceptance of an offer when a merchant shipped goods that someone did not object to but refused later to pay for.

True

In Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for an item or items offered for sale in a newspaper ad that he was not allowed to buy.

True

In Madison Square Gardens v. Carnera, a boxer's agreement not to fight certain other fighters was ruled enforceable by the court whose opinion you were assigned.

True

In Roger's Backhoe Services v. Nichols, the court determined that the owner of a property had impliedly agreed to pay for services even though there was no written or express oral agreement to do so.

True

In Venturi & Co. v. Pacific Malibu Development Corp., the court ruled that plaintiff(s) cannot collect fees for brokerage work if they lacked a real estate broker's license, even if someone in their office had a real estate sales license.

True

In Venturi & Co. v. Pacific Malibu Development Corp., the court ruled that the plaintiff(s) may be eligible for compensation for services for some of the work they did if that work did not need a broker's license.

True

In Venturi & Co. v. Pacific Malibu Development Corp., the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to compensation even though they had no direct role in finding the actual source of financing of a project.

True

In Watson v. Ingram, the court whose opinion you were assigned ruled that when a prospective home purchaser had paid a deposit but then backed out of the transaction, the seller could keep the deposit even though the seller found another buyer at the same price when the original buyer backed out; the original buyer was not entitled to the return of the deposit, even though the seller suffered no actual damages.

True

In Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. the court ruled that an installment sales contract can be unenforceable if the contract's terms are unconscionable.

True