Mind Tap Chapter 5
Quon decides to sell his antique roadster, so he places an ad on Craigslist. He lists the roadster as a 1957 Mercedes Benz 300SL Roadster, describes it as in good working condition, and states that no reasonable price will be refused. Fern responds to the ad and offers to pay $25,000 to Quon for the car, which Quon agrees to. In this scenario, who is the offeror? Quon was the original offeror, but Fern becomes the offeror when she offers $25,000. Neither party is the offeror because there is no agreement to specific terms. Quon is the offeror. Fern is the offeror.
Fern is the offeror.
Gavin and Allison are having drinks after work. After several rounds, the topic of Gavin's sports car comes up. Gavin is extremely proud of his sports car and brags about it all the time. To impress Allison, Gavin offers to sell Allison his expensive sports car for $5,000. Allison jumps at the deal, because she knows the car is worth much more than $5,000. They even write the "deal" down on a napkin, and both Gavin and Allison sign the napkin. The next morning, when Allison brings $5,000 to purchase the sports car, Gavin explodes. Gavin tells Allison that he was just kidding and that he would never sell his expensive sports car for such a low price. When Allison tries to enforce the deal: Neither Gavin nor Allison can rescind the contract because it is in writing. Gavin can either rescind the contract based on incapacity or ratify the contract. Either Gavin or Allison can rescind the contract based on incapacity or ratify the contract. Allison can either rescind the contract based on incapacity or ratify the contract.
Gavin can either rescind the contract based on incapacity or ratify the contract.
Lupita enters into a contract with Faith to purchase a used car. At the time they sign the contract, Lupita appears to be very intoxicated. Faith notices this but signs the contract anyway. If Lupita later decides she wants to get out of the contract: Lupita can raise the defense of lack of contractual capacity due to intoxication. Lupita can raise the issue of undue influence, because Faith took advantage of Lupita while she was drinking. Lupita cannot get out of the contract even though she had been drinking excessively. Lupita cannot get out of the contract if both parties signed it.
Lupita can raise the defense of lack of contractual capacity due to intoxication.
Ruby, a seventeen-year-old, purchases a car from Smitz Used Auto Sales and agrees to pay for it over a period of twenty-four months. Ruby makes the payments for four months but then decides the car payment is too much for her limited budget. Ruby tells Smitz that she wants to stop making payments and that she wants out of the contract completely. The contract between Ruby and Smitz can be canceled by: Ruby, because she is a minor, but Ruby must return the car. Smitz, because Ruby is a minor, but Smitz must allow Ruby to keep the car. Smitz or Ruby, because Ruby is a minor, and Ruby may keep the car. Ruby, because she is a minor, and Ruby may keep the car.
Ruby, because she is a minor, but Ruby must return the car.
Sarah is shopping at Sylvia's thrift store, and notices that the inside of the store needs repainting. Sarah offers to paint the store for $400. Sylvia does not respond to Sarah's offer. Later that day, Sarah returns to the store with painting supplies in hand and begins painting the store. When Sarah is finished, she demands payment of $400 from Sylvia. Will Sylvia have to pay Sarah for painting the store? Yes, Sylvia will have to pay Sarah for painting the store, even though she did not verbally agree to the contract. Yes, Sylvia will have to pay Sarah for painting the store because silence is always an acceptance of an offer. No, Sylvia will not have to pay Sarah for painting the store because silence can never be an acceptance of an offer. No, Sylvia will not have to pay Sarah for painting the store because Sarah did not verbally agree to the contract.
Yes, Sylvia will have to pay Sarah for painting the store, even though she did not verbally agree to the contract.
Nadia needs help running her bakery. Nadia contacts her friend Zoey, who has baking experience but lives in another state, and offers Zoey a job. Nadia orally promises Zoey that she will employ Zoey for at least two years. Zoey quits her job in the other state, moves her family, and begins to work for Nadia. After three months, Nadia terminates Zoey's employment. Zoey sues Nadia, claiming they had a contract for two years. If Nadia defends the lawsuit by claiming the contract could not be enforced because it violates the statute of frauds, the court will likely hold in favor of: Zoey, under the theory of promissory estoppel. Nadia, under the theory of promissory estoppel. Zoey, because the agreement violated the statute of frauds. Nadia, because enforcement of the promise is necessary to avoid injustice.
Zoey, under the theory of promissory estoppel.
Maryanne offers to sell her 2015 Mustang convertible to April for $15,000, and April agrees to those terms. April brings the $15,000 to Maryanne, and Maryanne promises to deliver the Mustang to April the next day after she has it detailed. At this point, Maryanne and April have: a unilateral contract. an executory contract. an executed contract. no contract.
an executory contract.
Jones Construction Company is building a series of new subdivisions in Newtown over the next two years. Jones enters into a verbal agreement with Harley Concrete Inc. to construct all the driveways and sidewalks in the subdivisions that Jones will be building. Jones and Harley agree on a price of $130 per cubic yard and that Jones will pay Harley at the end of each project. Harley completes the first project, which is four sidewalks and sixteen driveways, and bills Jones for the project. Jones decides that the price is too high and refuses to pay, claiming that they have no obligation to pay because the parties did not have a valid contract. If Harley sues Jones for payment the court would probably: hold that Harley is entitled to nothing because parties are free to terminate contracts if they so choose. apply quasi contract theory and award $130 per cubic feet, the contract price, to Harley. apply quasi contract theory and award the fair market value of the work that Harley completed. hold that Harley is entitled to nothing because the contract violates the Statute of Frauds.
apply quasi contract theory and award the fair market value of the work that Harley completed.
Owen offers to sell his motorcycle to Julian for $5,000. After he makes the offer, Owen has second thoughts. Owen can revoke the offer to sell his motorcycle to Julian: as long as Julian has not yet accepted the offer. even after Julian has accepted but before Julian has delivered the money to Owen. anytime, whether or not Julian has accepted the offer. at no time, because offers to sell merchandise are irrevocable.
as long as Julian has not yet accepted the offer.
Mia contracted with Greencare Lawn Service for a pest treatment on Mia's lawn for $1,000. Pat lives next door to Mia. Greencare mistakenly treats Pat's lawn instead of Mia's. Pat watched them perform the treatment while looking through the window of his living room, but did not go outside and stop them. When Greencare seeks payment from Pat, Greencare can probably receive: $1,000 from Pat, because Pat received the full value of the service. $1,000 from Mia, because there was a contract. nothing, because Greencare's contract was with Mia, not Pat. from Pat an amount less than the contract amount that will reimburse Greencare for expenses incurred, in order to avoid unjust enrichment.
from Pat an amount less than the contract amount that will reimburse Greencare for expenses incurred, in order to avoid unjust enrichment.
Zayn boards the Big Rock Metro to ride downtown to his job. Zayn gives his money to the driver and takes his seat. Neither the driver nor Zayn says anything. Zayn and the bus driver: have an express contract. have an implied contract. have no contract. have a formal contract.
have an implied contract.
Marie and Molly enter into a written contract to sell Marie's home to Molly. At the time the contract is executed, Marie tells Molly that for the last six months she has been sharing the home with a family of extraterrestrial beings. Marie states that she has asked the extraterrestrials to move out, but they won't; therefore, she is selling the family home to get rid of them and is willing to sell the home to Molly for well below market price. After the sale of the home is complete, Marie's children challenge the sales contract on the grounds that Marie did not have the mental capacity necessary to enter into a contract, even though Marie has not been declared incompetent by the courts. The contract between Marie and Molly can be rescinded: only if Marie's children have Marie committed. if Marie's children can prove that Marie lacked the mental capacity to comprehend the nature, purpose, and consequences of the contract. under no circumstances, because Marie was not adjudicated insane before she signed the contract. by either Marie or Molly.
if Marie's children can prove that Marie lacked the mental capacity to comprehend the nature, purpose, and consequences of the contract.
Liam is Neely's supervisor. During Neely's yearly written evaluation, Liam states that Neely has not performed her job well at all, constantly comes in late to work, and stirs up trouble with the other employees. Neely is understandably upset and wants to sue Liam for defamation. If Neely files a lawsuit against Liam for libel, Neely will probably: be successful if Liam's comments on Neely's written evaluation were made in good faith. not be successful if Liam's comments on Neely's written evaluation were made in good faith. be successful whether or not Liam's comments on Neely's written evaluation were made in good faith. not be successful whether or not Liam's comments on Neely's written evaluation were made in good faith.
not be successful if Liam's comments on Neely's written evaluation were made in good faith.
Rihana and her friends attend the opening day of Wild Water Country, a local water park attraction. Before riding the new Tornado Tunnel water slide, the steepest and scariest water slide in the park, Wild Water Country requires its customers to sign a waiver of liability which states that they know the risks involved in riding the Tornado Tunnel, and that Wild Water Country is not responsible for injuries that occur during the ride. Rihana signs the waiver and climbs to the top of the slide. As she begins her descent, however, the metal slide buckles under the weight of the riders. Rihana and several other riders are thrown from the slide and fall one hundred feet to their deaths. Rihana's parents sue Wild Water Country. Wild Water Country defends the lawsuit by stating they are not liable for any injuries because Rihana had signed a waiver of liability, and, therefore, she had assumed the risks associated with riding the water slide. Wild Water Country's defense will probably: not be successful, because Rihana did not assume the risk of the water ride collapsing. not be successful because companies cannot require their patrons to sign a waiver of liability. be successful because companies can lawfully require their patrons to sign a waiver of liability. be successful because Rihana assumed the risk of riding on the water slide.
not be successful, because Rihana did not assume the risk of the water ride collapsing.
Andrea and Jerome are involved in a terrible car accident. Andrea ran a red light and plowed into Jerome's car, causing Jerome's car to be totaled. Luckily, Jerome was not hurt. Jerome files a tort lawsuit against Andrea. If he is successful in his lawsuit, Jerome will receive compensatory damages, the purpose of which is to: reward Jerome for not being at fault. put Jerome in a better position than he would have been in had the tort not occurred. put Jerome in the position he would have been in had the tort not occurred. punish Andrea for her bad acts.
put Jerome in the position he would have been in had the tort not occurred.
Anne Marie has surgery to have her gall bladder removed at Mt. Sinai Hospital. The surgery goes well, but several days later, Anne Marie experiences severe abdominal pain. X-rays reveal a small surgical instrument in Anne Marie's abdominal cavity. Anne Marie has to endure another surgery to remove the instrument. Anne Marie sues the surgeon for negligence. To win her negligence lawsuit against the surgeon, Anne Marie must prove: that the surgeon was not qualified to perform the surgery. that the surgeon intended to leave a surgical instrument in her abdominal cavity. that a reasonable surgeon would not have left a surgical instrument in her abdominal cavity. that a reasonable person would not have left a surgical instrument in her abdominal cavity.
that a reasonable surgeon would not have left a surgical instrument in her abdominal cavity.
The weekly Kroger advertisement states that five-pound chubs of ground chuck are available for eighty-nine cents per pound. Arlene sees the advertisement; she realizes that ground chuck has not been priced this low in quite some time, so she hurries to the store to purchase some. Arlene loads seven chubs of ground chuck in her shopping cart. When she goes to the checkout to pay, however, the cashier informs Arlene that the price in the advertisement is a typo and that the correct price is $1.89 per pound. Arlene insists that the store must honor the price listed in the advertisement, because it is an offer that she has just accepted. The cashier calls the store manager for a decision. The store manager will likely explain to Arlene: that advertisements are not offers, but merely a request for offers. that the advertisement is a valid offer, and the store must honor the price in the advertisement. that the advertisement is a valid offer because it is in writing. that the advertisement is a valid offer because its terms are definite.
that advertisements are not offers, but merely a request for offers.
Milo is the owner of a sporting goods store that has only been open for three months. The holiday season is coming up, and Milo realizes that he will need extra help. Milo asks his friend Jess to help him out at the store. Milo and Jess agree that Jess will work during the months of November and December. However, because Milo is unsure how much help he will need and how much he will be able to pay, they agree to decide each week on the hours that Jess will work for the following week, and to decide the hourly rate after Jess has worked two weeks before she receives her first paycheck. Just before November 1, Jess takes a job at another store. If Milo tries to sue Jess for breach of contract, the court will probably decide: that the parties had a contract, but the damages could not be ascertained because the hourly rate and number of hours had not been determined. that the parties had a contract, and Jess breached the contract. that the parties had no contract because the terms of the offer were not definite. that the parties had no contract because the terms were not in writing.
that the parties had no contract because the terms of the offer were not definite.
Brindley has an old shed on her property that needs to be removed. She posts the following ad on Facebook: "Shed needs to be gone. You take down and haul away. (Much of the wood is reusable.) $100 to the first person to show up and haul this away." This is an example of a(n): illegal contract. unconscionable contract. unilateral contract. bilateral contract.
unilateral contract.
Freddy carries his books and school supplies in a large backpack. The hallways at Freddy's school are always very crowded. One day, Freddy turns around quickly to talk to a friend, and a sharp pencil that is sticking out of his backpack gouges Lorraine in the eye. Lorraine ends up losing the use of her eye. If Lorraine sues Freddy in a negligence action, the standard the court will use to determine whether Freddy is liable is: what the court would have done under the circumstances. what the jurors would have done under the circumstances. what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. what Lorraine would have done under the circumstances.
what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances.
