Contracts Practice Questions
A woman told her friend that she was very frustrated because she couldn't find a painter who would paint her house for less than $1,500. The friend offered to paint the woman's house for $1,200. The woman responded, "I can only promise to give you $1,000." The friend replied that she would not do the work for $1,000. What is the legal status of the friend's original offer to paint the house for $1,200? A The original offer was terminated by the woman's counteroffer. B The original offer was revoked upon the friend's refusal of the woman's counteroffer. C The original offer will remain open unless the woman explicitly refuses it. D The original offer will remain open unless the friend explicitly revokes it.
A The original offer was terminated by the woman's counteroffer.
The rules and principles found in the Second Restatement of Contracts would most likely apply to which of the following contracts? A A contract for the sale of cleaning supplies to a retailer. B A contract for the sale of heavy machinery to a factory. C A contract for the sale of lawn-care services to a homeowner. D A contract for the sale of a car to a consumer.
C A contract for the sale of lawn-care services to a homeowner.
A court would be most likely to find which of the following contracts to be substantively unconscionable? A A standard form contract prepared by one party that cannot be modified or negotiated by the other party. B A contract that gives one party a better deal than the other. C A contract in which a party agrees to sell something extremely valuable for nominal consideration. D A contract in which one party agrees to engage in an immoral act. E A contract in which one party was induced to assent by intense pressure.
C A contract in which a party agrees to sell something extremely valuable for nominal consideration.
In order to enforce a promise under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the promisee's action in reliance on the promise must amount to which of the following? A A symbolic acceptance of the promise. B A clear detriment to the promisor. C A definite and substantial action. D A completed performance.
C A definite and substantial action.
A manufacturer and a distributor entered into an agreement giving the distributor exclusive rights to distribute the manufacturer's product in Denver, Colorado. The distributor later argued that the geographic area encompassed by the agreement was not just the city of Denver itself, but the entire Denver metropolitan area, including suburbs. What fact would best support the distributor's argument? A Both parties intended the word "Denver" in the contract to mean the Denver metropolitan area. B The word "Denver" was handwritten on a standard form contract. C The distributor drafted the agreement. D Other locations in the contract referred to the encompassed area as the "city of Denver."
A Both parties intended the word "Denver" in the contract to mean the Denver metropolitan area.
A woman hired a contractor to repair water damage in her bathroom. The contractor agreed to a price of $5,000 for labor and $4,000 for materials. After starting the job, the contractor discovered that the damage was much worse than either party initially had believed. The contractor told the woman that while he would not need any additional materials to complete the job, he would need to spend several extra days working on it. He quoted her a new price of $8,000 for labor and $6,000 for materials, both of which the woman accepted. Which price increase, if any, will be enforceable in court? A Both the price increase for the labor and the materials. B Only the price increase for the materials. C Only the price increase for the labor. D Neither price increase.
A Both the price increase for the labor and the materials.
Which of the following is NOT an element that must be established by a plaintiff in order to prevail in an action based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel? A Consideration. B A promise. C An action or forbearance. D Reliance. E A substantial detriment.
A Consideration.
If there is a misunderstanding over the meaning of a term in a contract, but one party knows of the misunderstanding, how is a court most likely to resolve the issue? A Interpret the contract based on the understanding of the party who was unaware of the misunderstanding. B Interpret the contract in the manner that the court determines is most reasonable. C Determine that there was a lack of mutual assent and void the contract. D Determine that there was a lack of mutual assent only as to the term that was misunderstood and void only that term.
A Interpret the contract based on the understanding of the party who was unaware of the misunderstanding.
An eyeglass-frame manufacturer the exclusive right to fabricate 10 different eyeglass-frame designs for a period of two years. The agreement specified a graduated licensing fee that was based on the number of eyeglass frames the manufacturer fabricated annually. An exclusive licensing agreement must include a term setting the minimum amount that the manufacturer is required to produce. However, the parties' agreement did not specify any minimum number of frames that the eyeglass-frame manufacturer was required to fabricate during the contract's term. Realizing this problem after the contract was signed, the designer sued to void the agreement. Must the court void the contract? A No, because the court can supply a term requiring the manufacturer to make a reasonable number of frames. B No, because it is in the parties' best interests to preserve the contract. C Yes, because it is impossible to determine the parties' intent. D Yes, because the term's indefiniteness demonstrates that the parties did not have a meeting of the minds.
A No, because the court can supply a term requiring the manufacturer to make a reasonable number of frames.
A farmer sought to have a fence repaired. The farmer sent emails to several contractors explaining the job to be done and asking whether they would be willing to do the job for $2,500. One contractor who received the email came to the farm and repaired the fence while the farmer was away. Is there a valid contract between the farmer and the contractor? A No, because there was never an offer for the contractor to accept. B No, because the farmer was not aware that the contractor accepted his offer. C Yes, because the farmer received the benefit of the offered services under circumstances in which he had reason to know that compensation was expected. D Yes, because the farmer's email constituted an offer that the contractor accepted by performing.
A No, because there was never an offer for the contractor to accept.
A popular singer agreed to pay a hairstylist $10,000 per month to go on a nine-month tour with her, and the parties signed a written contract to this effect. The hairstylist typically earned $6,000 a month. Four months into the tour, the singer's hair began falling out due to stress, and the singer opted to wear wigs for all of her performances. However, the singer wanted the hairstylist to continue to travel with her in case her hair grew back. The singer asked the hairstylist to agree to a reduced salary of $5,000 for any month in which the singer did not require the hairstylist's services. The hairstylist reluctantly agreed to modify their agreement and completed the tour with the singer, whose hair did not grow back during the remaining five months of the tour. Upon her return home, however, the hairstylist sued the singer for the difference between what she was paid and what she would have been owed under the original contract. What will a court likely award the hairstylist? A Nothing, because the modification was valid. B Nothing, because although the modification was unenforceable, the hairstylist is barred from recovery because she assented to it. C The difference between the original contract compensation and the reduced compensation, because the modification was invalid. D The difference between the hairstylist's "typical" monthly salary and the amount she was paid under the modified contract for the last five months of the contract term, because justice requires that she be made whole.
A Nothing, because the modification was valid.
A contractor submitted a bid proposal to renovate an office building for a company. The contractor calculated the cost to perform each aspect of the job and then summed each entry to arrive at its total bid. However, the contractor accidentally omitted one of the entries in its summation. The contractor therefore submitted a bid proposal for a lower amount than it had intended. The company accepted the contractor's bid. The contractor then realized its mistake and sought to void the contract. Which of the following facts, if true, would NOT help the contractor in seeking to void the contract? A The contractor had exercised due care in the preparation of the bid proposal. B The contractor's bid was significantly lower than all the other bids on the project. C The contractor would lose a significant amount of money if forced to renovate the office building at the accepted bid amount. D The company saw each entry in the bid proposal and realized that the entries did not sum to the total bid amount.
A The contractor had exercised due care in the preparation of the bid proposal.
A woman who was hosting a party began negotiations with a caterer. The caterer offered to cater the party for $10,000. The woman stated that she needed some time to think about it. The caterer stated that the offer would be held open for four months, as long as the woman paid a fee of $100. The woman paid the caterer $100 that afternoon. Which of the following accurately describes the legal status of the parties' agreement? A The parties have a valid option contract for four months, during which time the caterer may not revoke the offer, and after which time the woman may not accept. B The parties have a valid option contract for three months, during which time the caterer may not revoke the offer, and after which time the woman may not accept. C The parties have a valid option contract for four months, after which time the woman may not accept the offer, and during the first three months of which the caterer may not revoke the offer. D The parties do not have a valid option contract.
A The parties have a valid option contract for four months, during which time the caterer may not revoke the offer, and after which time the woman may not accept.
A woman asked a friend to paint the woman's house. The woman knew that the friend owed several thousand dollars on her credit card, so the woman offered to pay off her friend's debt in exchange for the friend painting her house. The friend signed an agreement that she would paint the woman's house the following weekend, barring any rain. If it rained the following weekend, the friend would instead paint the house on the next weekend when it did not rain. Is there a valid contract between the woman and her friend? A Yes. B No, but only because the friend had a preexisting duty to pay off her credit-card debt. C No, but only because the friend's promise was illusory. D No, both because the friend had a preexisting duty to pay off her credit-card debt and because the friend's promise was illusory.
A Yes.
A car dealer gave a prospective buyer a signed writing offering to sell the buyer "the fastest car on the lot" for a 25% discount off the sticker price, and stating that the offer would remain open until the end of the month. In the last week of the month, the buyer came to the dealership and accepted the dealer's offer, tendering payment for a red sports car that was in fact the fastest car on the lot. Both the dealer and the buyer knew that the red sports car was the fastest car on the lot. The dealer also knew that the buyer was aware that the sports car was the fastest. However, the dealer wrote up a bill of sale for a gray sedan, explaining to the buyer that this was the car that he had intended to sell as "the fastest car on the lot" with the 25% discount. Which of the following principles of contract law would potentially aid the buyer in an action against the dealer? A Interpretation against the drafter, duty of good faith, and warranty of merchantability. B Interpretation against the drafter, misunderstanding, and duty of good faith. C Interpretation against the drafter, misunderstanding, and warranty of merchantability. D Misunderstanding, duty of good faith, and warranty of merchantability.
B Interpretation against the drafter, misunderstanding, and duty of good faith.
Which of the following is one of the correct standards of preference that courts will apply when interpreting a contract? A General terms are given greater weight than specific or exact terms. B Negotiated terms are given greater weight than non-negotiated terms. C Standard terms are given greater weight than added terms. D Printed terms are given greater weight than handwritten terms.
B Negotiated terms are given greater weight than non-negotiated terms.
A man whose home had been burglarized offered a reward for anyone who could provide information leading to the arrest of the person who burglarized his house. A neighbor who had witnessed the burglary gave information to the police, which led to the burglar's arrest. The neighbor was unaware that the man had offered a reward. Is there a valid contract between the man and the neighbor? A No, because the neighbor did not make a reciprocal promise to the man. B No, because the neighbor could not accept an offer that he did not know existed. C Yes, because the man received the benefit of the offered services. D Yes, because the man made an offer and the neighbor accepted by rendering performance.Bottom of Form
B No, because the neighbor could not accept an offer that he did not know existed.
A buyer sent a contract in the mail for a seller to sign and return. On day 1, the seller signed the contract. On day 2, the seller placed the contract in an envelope and mailed it. The seller accidentally transposed two numbers in the buyer's address on the envelope. On day 3, the seller performed her end of the contract by shipping the goods described in the contract to the buyer. On day 4, the postal worker who was delivering the letter saw the buyer's name on the envelope, realized that the address was in error, and delivered the letter to the correct address. On which day did the seller accept the buyer's offer? A On day 1, when she signed the contract. B On day 2, when she mailed the contract. C On day 3, when she performed her end of the contract. D On day 4, when the buyer received the contract.
B On day 2, when she mailed the contract.
A college student wanted to join her friends on a spring break trip but could not afford it. She told her uncle about the trip, and he said that he would pay for it as a graduation gift. In reliance on this promise, the student went on the trip, charging all expenses on her credit card. Upon her graduation, however, the uncle refused to give the student any money. If the student wishes to bring an action against the uncle, which theory of recovery, if any, would be most advisable for the student to pursue? A Breach of an enforceable contract. B Promissory estoppel. C No theory of recovery is likely to be successful, because a promise to make a gift is not enforceable in these circumstances. D No theory of recovery is likely to be successful, because the vacation was a benefit, not a detriment, to the student.
B Promissory estoppel.
An aunt knew that her nephew was planning to accept a job offer at an accounting firm after college. The aunt told the nephew that if he completed a two-year volunteer program overseas before starting an accounting job, then the aunt would give him $25,000 upon his return home from the two-year program. The nephew agreed, turned down the job offer, and planned to look for an accounting job at the end of the volunteer term. The aunt and the nephew did not memorialize their agreement in a writing. Halfway through the nephew's two-year assignment, the aunt emailed that she would not be able to give the nephew the $25,000 because she needed the money herself. At that time, the volunteer program had paid all the nephew's expenses to date. However, nephew had already altered his life plans and did not want to change the original agreement. The nephew sued to enforce the aunt's promise. How is a court likely to rule, and on what basis? A The court is likely to fully enforce the promise, in the amount of $25,000, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. B The court is likely to partially enforce the promise, in the amount of approximately $12,500 plus any expenses that the nephew would incur if he left the program, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. C The court is likely to deny enforcement of the promise, because the nephew did not sustain a detriment as required for promissory estoppel. D The court is likely to deny enforcement of the promise, due to failure of the parties to comply with the statute of frauds.
B The court is likely to partially enforce the promise, in the amount of approximately $12,500 plus any expenses that the nephew would incur if he left the program, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel
A homeowner called a landscaping service company seeking to hire a gardener to mow his lawn on a weekly basis. The landscaping company sent over a gardener to give a price quotation. The gardener met the homeowner in front of the homeowner's house. The gardener saw the size of the homeowner's front lawn and quoted a price for lawn-mowing service. The homeowner agreed to the price. The homeowner had a much larger lawn in his backyard that he did not show to the gardener. The gardener produced a standard form contract from the landscaping service that the homeowner signed. The next week, when the gardener went to mow the homeowner's lawn, the homeowner insisted that the gardener mow both the front and back lawn. The gardener told the homeowner that he was unaware of the existence of the back lawn and that the price they had agreed upon was for the front lawn only. If the homeowner sues the landscaping service, how will a court likely rule? A The gardener must mow both the front and back lawn for the agreed-upon price, because the landscaping service wrote the contract and the court will interpret the contract against the drafter. B The gardener must mow only the front lawn, because the homeowner knew that the gardener did not know about the existence of the back lawn. C The court will void the contract because the misunderstanding means that the parties did not mutually assent to the agreed-upon terms. D The court will find that the terms of the contract are sufficiently uncertain and void the contract for indefiniteness.
B The gardener must mow only the front lawn, because the homeowner knew that the gardener did not know about the existence of the back lawn.
A foreign stamp collector was interested in purchasing a collection of rare and valuable stamps from a seller in the United States. The seller showed the collector one group of stamps in a display case. The seller then showed the collector a second group of stamps in a separate display case. The collector believed that both groups of stamps were part of a single collection that had simply been divided for display purposes. The seller intended for each group to be a separate collection and was offering the collector alternative options for purchase. Because the collector spoke very little English, the seller and the collector were unable to effectively communicate with each other. The collector pointed to the first display case and wrote on a piece of paper, "$100,000 for the stamps." The seller agreed, believing that he was selling only the collection in the first case. The collector believed that he was purchasing the stamps in both cases. How will a court likely rule as to the validity of the contract between the collector and the seller? A There is no contract because of indefiniteness. B There is no contract because of ambiguity. C There is a contract for the sale of stamps in the first case for $100,000. D There is a contract for the sale of stamps in both cases for $100,000.
B There is no contract because of ambiguity.
An uncle told his nephew, who was planning to take a job at a brokerage firm after college, that the uncle wanted to buy him his first briefcase. The uncle told the nephew to go buy himself "the best briefcase that money can buy" and to send the receipt to the uncle so that the uncle could reimburse the nephew for the cost. The nephew ordered a designer leather briefcase that cost $3,000, which the nephew charged on a credit card. This was a high-end briefcase but not the best one available. When the nephew sent the receipt to the uncle, the uncle immediately told the nephew that he had changed his mind and couldn't afford to buy the nephew a briefcase. The nephew called the vendor to cancel the order but was told that he would only receive a $2,800 refund due to the vendor's nonrefundable $200 restocking fee for order cancellations. If the nephew sues the uncle to enforce his promise, how much, if anything, would a court likely award the nephew? A. $3,000. B. $200. C. The price of the best briefcase on the market. D. Nothing.
B. $200
A woman invited a friend to accompany her to a movie as her guest. Movie tickets in the neighborhood generally cost $15, although the woman had received free passes to this movie. The next week, the woman went to the friend's high-end hair salon for a haircut. The friend did not know that the woman would be coming by for a haircut. When the friend sought payment of her standard $100 fee for a haircut, the woman stated that she had already compensated the friend by taking her to the movies the week before. She walked out without paying, and the friend sued her in small claims court. Which of the following best explains why the friend will prevail in this suit? A Because the woman did not pay anything for the movie ticket, and therefore she had provided consideration of no value. B Because the movie ticket was of unequal value to the haircut. C Because the movie ticket was a gift and not a bargained-for value. D Because the movie ticket was past consideration for a contract that was already performed.
C Because the movie ticket was a gift and not a bargained-for value.
If the parties to an otherwise-valid contract failed to provide for a particular situation that arose after the contract was formed, what should a court do? A Void the contract for vagueness. B Invalidate the contract for impossibility. C Fill the gap in the contract by supplying terms that are reasonable under the circumstances. D Direct the parties to enter into a new agreement that addresses the unanticipated situation.
C Fill the gap in the contract by supplying terms that are reasonable under the circumstances.
A recording company entered into a contract with a famous singer to record an album. Under the terms of the contract, the singer would receive one payment up front, followed by a much larger payment once the album was released. After the singer recorded the album, she experienced a personal scandal that greatly decreased her popularity. The recording company believed that it would lose money by releasing the album, as the payment owed to the singer upon release would likely be greater than the amount the company would earn from sales of the album. The company reviewed the terms of the contract with the singer and realized that nothing in the contract specified a date by which the album had to be released. The company decided to not release the album. If the singer sues the company for breach of contract, how will a court likely rule? A It will void the contract because the absence of a key term means that the contract is too indefinite to be enforced. B It will void the contract because the absence of a key term means that there was not mutual assent. C It will impose a duty of good faith and require the company to release the album within a reasonable time after its recording. D It will interpret the contract based on the purpose of the recording company for entering into the contract, which was to make money, and not require the company to release the album because doing so would no longer be profitable.
C It will impose a duty of good faith and require the company to release the album within a reasonable time after its recording.
A lawyer said to a friend's son, "I would love to see you go to law school. The law firms I know aren't attracting enough people like you." Based on the lawyer's statement, the friend's son attended law school. The friend's son financed his education with student loans, believing that the lawyer was going to help him find a job when he graduated. Upon graduation, the friend's son asked the lawyer to help him find a job, but the lawyer refused. The friend's son considered whether he might prevail in getting the lawyer's assistance by bringing an action based on promissory estoppel. Of the three elements of promissory estoppel—a promise, justifiable reliance, and a detriment—which element or elements are satisfied here? A A promise, justifiable reliance, and a detriment. B Only justifiable reliance and a detriment. C Only a detriment. D Only justifiable reliance.
C Only a detriment.
In the context of contract formation, an offer is valid only if its terms are which of the following? A Reasonable. B Objectively clear. C Reasonably certain. D Fair.
C Reasonably certain.
In the context of contract formation, which of the following is an effective acceptance of a unilateral contract? A A promise to perform. B The beginning of performance. C The completion of full performance. D An exchange of promises to perform
C The completion of full performance.
When choosing among reasonable meanings of a term in a written contract, a court will generally interpret the term against whom? A The plaintiff, because the plaintiff is potentially the wronged party. B The defendant, because the plaintiff has the burden of proof. C The drafter, because the drafter chose the terms. D The non-drafter, because the non-drafter had the obligation to read the terms carefully before signing the contract.
C The drafter, because the drafter chose the terms.
A group of friends attended a party. One man attempted to discard empty beer cans by throwing them into the trash can across the room. The man had terrible aim and missed all of his shots. One of the man's friends shouted to him, "I'll give you $20 if you can sink the next one you throw." The man did not throw any more beer cans the rest of the night. A week later, the friends attended another party at the same location. The man picked up an empty beer can and successfully threw it into the trash can across the room. Which of the following best describes the validity of the friend's offer? A. The offer was never valid, because it was clearly intended as a joke. B. The offer was never valid, because its terms were not reasonably certain. C. The offer was valid but expired shortly after it was made. D. The offer was valid, never expired, and was accepted by the man.
C. The offer was valid but expired shortly after it was made.
A man told his neighbor that he had always admired her car. The neighbor told the man that she would sell him the car for $10,000, and that she would keep the offer open for one week if the man gave her $100. The man did not have any money at the time, but he stated that he would deliver the $100 later that day. The man did not deliver the payment that day, and the next day the neighbor received and accepted an offer from a different buyer. Two days later, when the man attempted to give the neighbor the $100 payment, the neighbor told him that she had already sold the car. If the man sues the neighbor for breach of contract, is he likely to be successful? A Yes, because the man provided the agreed-upon consideration within a reasonable time. B Yes, because the neighbor's offer was irrevocable for one week. C No, because an option contract must be in writing. D No, because the man did not provide the required consideration to keep the neighbor's offer open.
D No, because the man did not provide the required consideration to keep the neighbor's offer open.
A woman visited a car dealership and found a convertible that she wished to purchase. The car was selling for $30,000, but the woman did not have enough money at the time to buy it. The dealer, seeing how badly the woman wanted the car, provided her with a signed writing stating that the dealer would sell the convertible to the woman for $30,000 and that the woman could email the dealer anytime within the next five months to accept the offer. Four months later, the dealer emailed the woman revoking the offer. The woman immediately replied, accepting the terms of the signed writing and arguing that her acceptance was valid because she still had one month to accept. The next day, the woman returned to the dealership to pay for the convertible. The dealer refused to sell her the car, arguing that the offer was revoked and that he never received her acceptance email, even though it was sent to the correct email address. Which of the following best states the legal status of the contract between the woman and the dealer? A. There is a valid contract at the time the woman sent the reply email, because the dealer was not entitled to revoke the offer for five months, and the woman's reply email was an effective acceptance within that time. B. There is a valid contract at the time the woman tendered payment, because the dealer was not entitled to revoke the offer for five months, and the woman's tender of payment was an effective acceptance within that time. C. There is not a valid contract, because the dealer successfully revoked his offer before the woman accepted. D. There is not a valid contract, because absent consideration, the offer terminated by lapse of time after the woman left the dealership, and there was no need for the dealer to revoke an offer that had already terminated.
C. There is not a valid contract, because the dealer successfully revoked his offer before the woman accepted.
A steel manufacturer agreed to sell a certain amount of steel to a purchaser on a monthly basis. The parties signed a fully integrated contract, drafted by the purchaser, stating that the price of the steel would be set based upon the monthly market price for steel, as listed in a certain trade magazine. Several months into the contract, the trade magazine stopped publication. The purchaser refused to accept the manufacturer's next delivery and the manufacturer sued the purchaser for breach of contract. The manufacturer demonstrated that the market price of steel was still discernible from other sources and asked the court to enforce the contract. How will a court likely rule? A For the purchaser, because the continued publication of the trade magazine was a condition of the contract, whose nonoccurrence relieved the parties of their duties to perform under the contract. B For the purchaser, because the court will not be able to use extrinsic information about the market price of steel to supplement the terms of a fully integrated contract. C For the manufacturer, because the court will interpret any ambiguous terms in the contract against the purchaser, who drafted the contract. D For the manufacturer, because the court will supply the now-missing price term by discerning the market price of steel from other sources.
D For the manufacturer, because the court will supply the now-missing price term by discerning the market price of steel from other sources.
A newly opened natural-foods restaurant contracted with a seafood vendor to purchase 100 pounds of crabmeat. The restaurant thought it was ordering real crabmeat. However, that vendor did not sell real crabmeat and was known for its high-quality crabmeat substitute. The vendor thought that the restaurant knew this and was ordering the vendor's version of crabmeat. Upon receiving the shipment, the restaurant discovered that the product was only a crabmeat substitute. The restaurant then sought to rescind the contract, return the shipment, and get a refund of its payment. The vendor refused, and the restaurant sued. In the rescission dispute, which party's understanding of the crabmeat term will govern the contract's meaning? A The restaurant's understanding (real crabmeat). B The vendor's understanding (crabmeat substitute). C Neither the restaurant's nor the vendor's understanding will govern and the court will likely use a dictionary definition. D Neither the restaurant's nor the vendor's understanding will govern and the court will likely void the contract for a lack of mutual assent.
D Neither the restaurant's nor the vendor's understanding will govern and the court will likely void the contract for a lack of mutual assent.
A brother told his sister that he was bored at his job and wanted to fund a business venture with her. The sister was thrilled, because she had been out of work for a long time and wanted to earn some money. She spent several months looking into business opportunities in her free time, at which point the brother told her that he had changed his mind and decided not to fund any venture with the sister. If the sister wishes to bring an action against the brother, which theory of recovery, if any, would be most advisable for the sister to pursue? A Breach of an enforceable unilateral contract. B Breach of an enforceable bilateral contract. C Promissory estoppel. D No theory of recovery is likely to be successful, because a promise to make a gift is not enforceable in these circumstances.Bottom of FormBottom of Form Bottom of Form
D No theory of recovery is likely to be successful, because a promise to make a gift is not enforceable in these circumstances.Bottom of FormBottom of Form Bottom of Form
A gamer agreed to purchase a friend's used smart TV for $100. When negotiating the sale, the gamer had asked the friend if the Internet function on the TV worked. The friend said, "The last time I checked, the Internet worked." The gamer never inspected the TV. The parties reduced their agreement to a writing that they both intended to serve as their final and complete agreement. The written agreement contained the disclaimer, "The seller makes no warranties about the smart TV, either express or implied, including oral representations." In addition, the written agreement stated, in large-print, bold letters, "The TV is sold as is." When the gamer attempted to set up the TV, the Internet function did not work. If the gamer brings a claim against the friend for the faulty TV and argues that there was a warranty based on the parties' discussion about the Internet function, is the gamer likely to prevail? A Yes, because the friend's oral assurance that the Internet function worked created an express warranty, which was violated. B Yes, because the friend's oral assurance that the Internet function worked created an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, which was violated. C No, because the gamer had a duty to examine the TV prior to purchase. D No, because the friend's statement likely did not create a warranty as to the Internet function, and if it did, evidence of the statement would be excluded by the parol evidence rule.
D No, because the friend's statement likely did not create a warranty as to the Internet function, and if it did, evidence of the statement would be excluded by the parol evidence rule.
A company offered a woman a job contract. The contract specified the woman's duties, salary, benefits, holidays, start date, and other material terms. The woman responded to the company by saying that she accepted its offer but wanted one extra week of vacation time per year. Has the woman accepted the company's offer? A Yes, because the request for an extra week of vacation time will be treated as a proposal for an addition to the contract, not a counteroffer. B Yes, because the extra week of vacation time is not an essential term of the contract. C No, because the extra week of vacation time materially alters the contract. D No, because the request for an extra week of vacation time will be treated as a counteroffer, not an acceptance.
D No, because the request for an extra week of vacation time will be treated as a counteroffer, not an acceptance.
A student enrolled at a private college. After she finished her first year, her uncle told her that he was so proud of her attending college that he would pay for her remaining three years. After the student finished her second year of college, her uncle told her that he had suffered financial setbacks and would not honor his promise to pay for her tuition. The student completed two more years of college and graduated. If the student sues her uncle seeking to recover on a theory of promissory estoppel, how much is she likely to recover? A The cost of all four years of college. B The cost of her last three years of college. C The cost of her second year of college. D Nothing.
D Nothing.
Which of the following is the LEAST relevant to determining the meaning of a contract? A The parties' intended meaning of the particular words used. B The parties' mutual understanding of their rights and obligations. C The parties' prior dealings, if any. D The dictionary definitions of the particular words used by the parties.
D The dictionary definitions of the particular words used by the parties.
The carpenter called the neighbor and offered to replace the handrail the following Saturday for $100. The neighbor responded, "I accept if you promise not to make any noise before 10 a.m." What is the legal status of the carpenter's offer? A The offer has neither been accepted nor rejected, and it remains open. B The offer was accepted, and the parties have a contract that includes the extra term proposed by the neighbor unless the carpenter rejects the additional term within a reasonable time. C The offer was accepted, and the parties have a contract that excludes the extra term proposed by the neighbor. D The offer was terminated by the neighbor's counteroffer.
D The offer was terminated by the neighbor's counteroffer.
A buyer sought to purchase a used television from an online auction site. The buyer emailed the seller, asking, "Does the television work?" The seller, who was not a merchant, responded, "Yes, just like new!" The buyer purchased the television. After the buyer received the television, he found that its casing had numerous scratches and dents. However, the television functioned perfectly. The buyer sued the seller, alleging that the seller had breached a warranty because the television was not "just like new." What is the seller's best argument for why she did not breach a warranty to the buyer? A There is no implied warranty of merchantability because the seller is not a merchant. B There is no express warranty because an examination of the television would have revealed the defects. C The description of the television was mere puffery, not a warranty. D The phrase "just like new" should be interpreted as applying to the television's functioning, not its appearance.
D The phrase "just like new" should be interpreted as applying to the television's functioning, not its appearance.
A tenant entered into a residential lease agreement with a landlord. The tenant signed a preprinted form contract. One of the provisions of the contract was labeled a no-pets clause. The clause stated that the apartment prohibited tenants from having cats or dogs due to the damage they caused to the carpeting. After the tenant moved in, he purchased a pet hamster that he kept in a small cage in the apartment. The landlord told the tenant that the hamster was not allowed under the terms of the lease. If the tenant argues that the terms of the lease do not prohibit the hamster, which principle of contract interpretation will NOT support his argument? A The principle that contracts will be interpreted against the drafter when choosing among reasonable meanings. B The principle that specific or exact terms will receive greater weight than general language. C The principle that language in a contract will be interpreted based on the parties' purpose for entering the contract. D The principle that courts will impose a duty of good faith in the performance and enforcement of the contract.
D The principle that courts will impose a duty of good faith in the performance and enforcement of the contract.
What is the policy purpose of the doctrine of promissory estoppel? A To enforce contracts that are not supported by valid consideration. B To prevent enforcement of contracts not supported by valid consideration. C To prevent injustice to a promisor. D To prevent injustice to a promisee.
D To prevent injustice to a promisee.
A landlord owned a large piece of commercial property that housed several buildings and a common parking lot. The landlord was negotiating a lease for Building 101 with a potential tenant. The landlord orally promised the potential tenant that the 20 parking spaces directly in front of Building 101 would be set aside for the exclusive use of the occupant of that building and could not be used by other businesses in the complex. The landlord and the tenant later executed a written lease agreement for "Building 101" that made no specific mention of the parking spaces. After the tenant moved in, the landlord refused to set aside any spaces for the tenant's exclusive use. If the tenant sues the landlord for breach of contract, for which purpose will the evidence of the oral promise NOT be admissible? A To prove that the written lease agreement was not intended to be an integrated agreement at all. B To prove that the written lease agreement was intended to be only a partially integrated agreement. C To clarify that the phrase "Building 101" in the lease agreement was meant to include the 20 parking spaces situated in front of it as well. D To prove that the parties had previously agreed to different terms before executing the written agreement.
D To prove that the parties had previously agreed to different terms before executing the written agreement.
A dental-school student learned that a classmate was from the same small town. The dental student planned to return to the town to practice dentistry after she graduated. She was concerned that her classmate might also seek to practice in the same town, which was too small to generate enough business for two dentists. The dental student told her classmate that if he agreed not to practice dentistry in their hometown for one year after graduation, she would pay him $1,000. The classmate, who had no intention of returning to the town, accepted. Is there a valid contract between the dental student and her classmate? A No, because the classmate provided no consideration in exchange for the $1,000 because he never planned on practicing dentistry in the town. B No, because the classmate's consideration was illusory because he could always change his mind about wanting to practice dentistry in the town. C No, because the classmate committed misrepresentation by concealment by not telling the dental student that he had no intention of practicing dentistry in the town. D Yes, a valid contract exists because the classmate's promise not to practice dentistry in the town for one year constituted consideration.Bottom of Form
D Yes, a valid contract exists because the classmate's promise not to practice dentistry in the town for one year constituted consideration.Bottom of Form
A businesswoman offered to make a $1,000,000 donation to a university in exchange for the university naming a new building after her. A week later, the university informed her that it had officially named the building after her. Assuming that the applicable state law treats the enforceability of charitable pledges under its general law of contracts, is the woman obligated to make the $1,000,000 donation to the university? A No, because the university's action in naming the building does not constitute an acceptance of the woman's offer. B No, because the university's action in naming the building does not constitute consideration. C No, because the woman's demand that the university name a building after her exhibits an intent not to be bound by her promise. D Yes, because all requirements of contract formation have been met.
D Yes, because all requirements of contract formation have been met.
A landowner and a buyer signed a written contract in which the landowner would convey a large plot of land to the buyer without anything in return. Previously, the buyer had agreed to pay the landowner the market value of the land. On the date the parties agreed to close the deal, the landowner refused to convey the land. The buyer sued the landowner for specific performance of the written contract. Assuming the court finds the written contract to be completely integrated, is the court likely to allow the landowner to offer evidence that the buyer had previously agreed to pay market value for the land? A No, because the previous agreement contradicts the integrated terms of the written contract. B Yes, because the previous agreement is outside the scope of the written contract. C Yes, because the previous agreement helps to interpret the terms of the written contract. D Yes, because the written contract is unlikely to be considered a binding agreement.
D Yes, because the written contract is unlikely to be considered a binding agreement.
A woman was considering purchasing an expensive rug from a merchant. The merchant told her that he would be willing to sell her the rug for $4,000. The merchant told her that he would leave the offer open for six months if the woman paid him $200. The woman accepted and paid the merchant. After five months, the woman told the merchant that she wanted to purchase the rug for $4,000. Is the merchant obligated to sell the rug to the woman for $4,000? A. No, because the promise to leave the offer open was not in a signed writing. B. No, because the promise to leave the offer open expired after three months. C. Yes, because there was a valid firm offer. D. Yes, because there was a valid option contract.
D. Yes, because there was a valid option contract.
