Contracts & Sales MBE PQs Session 3 Flashcards
(34 cards)
A recent college graduate offered to buy all of the computers from a failing online retailer for which he had been an intern during college, and the retailer accepted. The terms of the written agreement were such that the graduate would pay $10,000 for a “reasonable number of computers” since the retailer was winding up its business and no longer needed them all. Due to his internship with the retailer, the graduate knew that there were 50 computers in the office and that nearly all of them were unused, so he believed that he would receive all 50 computers once the retailer closed. He gave the retailer a check for $10,000 and, in return, took 10 computers from the office that day.
With the help of the $10,000 and a sudden upswing in the online retail market, the retailer became profitable. When the graduate demanded the remaining 40 computers, the retailer refused. Instead, the retailer returned the $10,000 to the graduate and demanded the return of the 10 computers that were in the graduate’s possession.
The graduate sued the retailer for breach of contract. The retailer has moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that no valid contract existed.
How is the court likely to rule?
Answers:
A) Deny the motion, because the court may supply missing terms in a contract.
B) Deny the motion, because the parties formed a requirements contract.
C) Grant the motion, because the retailer’s increased profitability constituted a supervening event.
D) Grant the motion, because there was no agreement as to quantity.
D) Grant the motion, because there was no agreement as to quantity.
A woman emailed her friend, stating that someday, she would like to buy the friend’s teacup collection. The email stated, “When times aren’t so tough, I would gladly pay $1,000 for them.” The friend responded with an email stating, “That would be fine with me. I’d love for you to have them.” The women did not exchange money or the teacups and did not see each other until a year later.
When they did see each other, the friend apologized for forgetting about their discussion and told the woman she would deliver the teacups the next weekend and would accept a check at that time. The woman said that she did not remember the discussion but would pay $750 for the teacups. The friend responded, “Haven’t we already discussed this? Sold.” The next day, the friend turned the teacups over to the woman, who provided the friend with a check for $750. The friend immediately responded that she needed the check for the remaining $250. The woman kept the teacups.
Is the woman liable for the remaining $250?
Answers:
A) No, because a contract was not formed until the day the women spoke in person.
B) No, because oral agreements for the sale of goods are not enforceable.
C) Yes, because the original contract was for $1,000.
D) Yes, because the woman kept the teacups.
A) No, because a contract was not formed until the day the women spoke in person.
A party-planning company specialized in creating and selling nine different kits for themed parties. A store that sells party-related items entered into a written agreement with the company. Under this agreement, the company was to deliver 500 kits to the store by November 1. The agreement stated that selections regarding the types of kits and the number of each were to be made by October 15, but the agreement did not specify who was to make the selections. Neither the store nor the company selected any assortment of the kits by October 15.
On October 16, the company notified the store that due to its breach, the company would not be shipping the party kits. On October 17, after receiving the company’s notification, the store informed the company of its selections. The company refused to send the kits that the store selected even though it had a surplus of all of the merchandise and could have filled the store’s order with any combination of themed kits.
If the store sues the company for breach of contract on November 2, is the store likely to prevail?
Answers:
A) No, because the company had no duty to perform since an assortment was not selected by October 15.
B) No, because the failure to specify the party responsible for selecting the types and numbers of each kit renders the contract unenforceable due to the indefiniteness of its terms.
C) Yes, because the company was required to make a reasonable selection of available merchandise to fill the order.
D) Yes, because the store’s two-day delay in making its selections did not have a material effect on the company’s ability to perform the contract.
D) Yes, because the store’s two-day delay in making its selections did not have a material effect on the company’s ability to perform the contract.
The owner of a beauty products store mentioned to a longtime customer that she was selling her car. The storeowner showed the customer a picture of the car and told her its year, make, model, and mileage. When the customer expressed an interest, the storeowner gave her the keys and told her to check it out for herself. The customer took the keys, looked over the inside and the outside of the car, and drove it around the block. When the customer returned to the store, the storeowner honestly stated that she knew little about cars and was selling the car with all its faults. The storeowner and the customer agreed upon a price of several thousand dollars for the car. Several days after the customer paid for the car and took ownership of it, the car stopped running. The customer towed the car to a mechanic and learned that it required a costly engine overhaul that neither the storeowner nor the customer was aware of at the time of the sale and that could not have been detected without a specialized inspection. The customer has filed a lawsuit against the storeowner for breach of the warranty of merchantability.
Is the customer likely to be successful?
Answers:
A) No, because the storeowner was not a merchant with respect to the car.
B) No, because the storeowner was unaware of the problem with the car’s engine.
C) Yes, because the defect could not have been detected without a specialized inspection.
D) Yes, because the warranty of merchantability cannot be orally disclaimed.
A) No, because the storeowner was not a merchant with respect to the car.
A buyer at a local market offered to purchase a large mirror from an artist for $1,000. The artist stated that he wanted to wait to see how many people went through the market that day before he decided on whether he would accept the offer. The buyer agreed to wait until the next morning for the artist’s decision.
The next morning, the buyer returned to the market only to learn that the mirror had been dropped and shattered. The buyer believed that the destruction of the mirror terminated his original offer, but because the frame of the mirror was still in good condition, the buyer decided to buy the frame instead. The buyer wrote a check for $500 and gave it to the artist without further remark. The artist loaded the empty frame into the buyer’s vehicle and, believing that he had accepted the buyer’s original offer, demanded the remaining $500 the buyer had offered the day before.
Is the buyer liable for the remaining $500?
Answers:
A) No, because the buyer believed that the original offer had terminated.
B) No, because the original offer terminated.
C) Yes, because the artist thought that he had accepted the original offer.
D) Yes, because the original offer was still valid.
B) No, because the original offer terminated.
A painter entered into a contract with a homeowner to paint the exterior of the homeowner’s home over a weekend while the homeowner was on vacation. After the homeowner left on his vacation, the painter was offered a second job that paid slightly more during the same weekend. The painter delegated his duty under the first contract to a second painter in exchange for a $50 advance and a promise to split his profits from both jobs with the second painter. The second painter took the advance and agreed to paint the homeowner’s home that weekend. The first painter worked on the second job that weekend and did not check on the homeowner’s home. When the homeowner returned from vacation, he discovered that his home had not been painted at all. In addition, no one has been able to locate the second painter.
Does the homeowner have a valid cause of action against the first painter?
Answers:
A) No, because the homeowner has not exhausted his remedies against the second painter.
B) No, because the second painter accepted consideration in exchange for his promise to paint the home.
C) Yes, because the first painter was not released from his liability to the homeowner.
D) Yes, because the homeowner is unable to recover from the missing second painter.
C) Yes, because the first painter was not released from his liability to the homeowner.
The owner of a coffee shop saw the work of an eccentric local artist at an art show. The owner discovered that the artist operated a small interior-decorating business and, wanting the artist’s unique style reflected in her own business, hired the artist to decorate her coffee shop. A week before the artist was scheduled to decorate the coffee shop, the artist sold her decorating business to a young art school graduate and delegated all of her outstanding contracts to him. The graduate took over all financial and creative management of the business.
If the coffee shop owner refuses to accept performance by the art school graduate, is the owner liable for breach of contract?
Answers:
A) No, because the artist’s duty under the contract involved her taste and skill.
B) No, because the delegation created reasonable grounds for insecurity.
C) Yes, because the art school graduate is completely capable of performing the contract.
D) Yes, because the contract did not prohibit delegation of duty.
A) No, because the artist’s duty under the contract involved her taste and skill.
A comic-book collector agreed to purchase comic books from a man who had just inherited a large collection of them. Before they signed the written agreement, the collector emailed the man to ask if he would include a particularly rare issue of Batman in the sale, and the man agreed by email that he would. The written contract provided that the man would sell to the collector “a collection of comic books containing the following issues,” followed by a list of each comic book to be included in the sale, for a total price of $4,000. The list did not include the Batman issue. The contract also stated that it was “the complete and final agreement” between the man and the collector.
When the collector received the comic books, he discovered that the shipment did not include the Batman issue. He sued the man, stating that even though the list in the written contract did not mention the particular Batman issue, the collector had relied on the promise in the man’s email when he signed the contract. At trial, the collector seeks to introduce the emails sent prior to the execution of the agreement that referenced the Batman issue.
Are the emails admissible?
Answers:
A) No, because of the parol evidence rule.
B) No, because the Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to this transaction.
C) Yes, because the agreement was only partially integrated.
D) Yes, because the parol evidence rule applies only to oral communications.
A) No, because of the parol evidence rule.
A construction company contracted with a manufacturer to purchase 100 identical prefabricated windows to use while constructing houses in a gated community. The windows were to be delivered in shipments of 25 windows each on April 1, May 15, July 1, and August 15. The written contract, signed by both parties, was silent as to when payment for each shipment would be due. The manufacturer made the first two shipments in conformity with the contract requirements, and the construction company paid one-fourth of the full contract price upon each delivery. However, on June 1, the manufacturer demanded that the construction company pay the entire remainder of the contract price before the manufacturer made any further shipments.
Which of the following statements is true?
Answers:
A) The construction company has no duty under the contract to make any payments until the final delivery is made.
B) The construction company must pay the manufacturer one-fourth of the contract price upon delivery of each conforming shipment of windows.
C) The construction company’s failure to pay the requested sum will amount to a repudiation of the contract.
D) The manufacturer waived his right to demand immediate payment of the full contract price when he accepted the first payment of one-fourth of the contract price on April 1.
B) The construction company must pay the manufacturer one-fourth of the contract price upon delivery of each conforming shipment of windows.
A groom left his bride at the altar on the day of their wedding. The bride could not bear to keep any painful reminders of the occasion, so she offered to sell her wedding dress to one of her bridesmaids for $5,000. The bride stated that the offer would remain open for 30 days. The bridesmaid said that she was interested but would have to think about it.
A week later, the bridesmaid emailed the bride to ask if the price included the custom-made veil that the bride had worn. The bride did not respond to the bridesmaid’s question. Within the 30-day period, the bridesmaid accepted the bride’s initial offer of $5,000 for the wedding dress. In response, the bride stated that the bridesmaid could only buy the wedding dress for $6,000.
Was a contract formed when the bridesmaid accepted the initial offer of $5,000?
Answers:
A) No, because the bride raised the price of the dress to $6,000.
B) No, because the bridesmaid’s question acted as a counteroffer and a rejection of the $5,000 offer price.
C) Yes, because the bride was required to keep the initial offer open for the 30-day period.
D) Yes, because the bridesmaid’s question did not constitute a counteroffer.
D) Yes, because the bridesmaid’s question did not constitute a counteroffer.
An employee signed an employment contract with a company to be a remote salesman. The contract set forth the employee’s yearly salary and a requirement that he work at least 30 hours per week. The contract also required the employee to log his monthly sales figures online by the last business day of the month. However, the contract did not provide monthly sales goals and made no guarantees about how or when a potential bonus would be paid or earned.
After the employee worked remotely for the company for a few months, the company called the employee on March 15. Over the phone, a representative of the company explained that the company was establishing a new bonus program for employees who reached certain monthly sales goals. The representative explained that the employee would receive a bonus for reaching these sales goals, provided that he not only logged his sales online but also called the company’s central office on the first Friday of each month during business hours and reported his sales figures for the previous month.
The employee worked diligently for the remainder of March to meet the sales figures required to receive a bonus, working approximately 40 hours per week. He logged his sales online at the end of March, as required by his contract. On the first Friday in April, the employee called the company to report his March sales figures. However, the company had disconnected its phone lines and did not receive the employee’s call. The company subsequently refused to pay the employee a bonus for meeting his sales goals in March.
Will the employee likely prevail in a breach-of-contract action against the company for his unpaid March bonus?
Answers:
A) No, because the employee failed to notify the company during his conversation on March 15 that he had accepted the offered bonus plan.
B) No, because the employee’s performance of his preexisting legal duty to sell merchandise for the company will not qualify as consideration.
C) Yes, because the company itself prevented the employee from satisfying the express condition of the March 15 offer.
D) Yes, because the employee worked for 40 hours per week for the month of March.
C) Yes, because the company itself prevented the employee from satisfying the express condition of the March 15 offer.
At the beginning of the week, a homeowner met with a contractor to discuss remodeling a bathroom in her home. At the conclusion of their meeting, the contractor told the homeowner that he would charge her $5,000 to $6,000 for the work, but that he would get back to her with a final price. When he arrived at his office later that day, the contractor opened an email from the homeowner that she had sent earlier. In the email, she stated that she would pay the contractor $5,000 for the job.
Two days later, the contractor responded by email that he could not complete the work for less than $5,500. The homeowner replied by email that she couldn’t pay $5,500 but that, if the contractor changed his mind about doing the work for $5,000, he could begin work before the end of the week. The contractor received the email but did not respond. The next day, the contractor appeared at the homeowner’s house and began remodeling the bathroom.
Which of the following statements regarding the relationship between the parties is most accurate?
Answers:
A) A contract was formed at a reasonable price.
B) A contract was formed at the price of $5,000.
C) A contract was formed at the price of $5,500.
D) No contract was formed.
B) A contract was formed at the price of $5,000.
The owner of a high-rise building entered into a written contract with a company to maintain and service the elevators in the building. The written contract contained the following provision: “This contract is the entire and final agreement of the parties regarding the maintenance and servicing of the elevators in Building. It supersedes any prior agreements, understandings, or negotiations.”
On the starting date of the contract, the company discovered that the building’s elevators were significantly older than the owner had orally represented to the company during the negotiations prior to the signing of the contract. The company refused to maintain and service the elevators unless the owner agreed to a sizable increase in the monthly payments called for in the contract. The owner refused and found another entity to maintain and service the elevators at a cost below what the company wanted but above the original contract price. The owner then sued the company for breach of contract, seeking the difference between the contract price and the amount paid to the entity that was currently providing elevator maintenance and service.
At trial, the company seeks to introduce evidence of the owner’s oral statement as to the age of the elevators during contract negotiations.
Should the court permit the introduction of this statement?
Answers:
A) No, because of the parol evidence rule.
B) No, because the contract for services is governed by common law.
C) Yes, because the statement relates to a contract defense.
D) Yes, because the statement was oral, not written.
C) Yes, because the statement relates to a contract defense.
A library contacted a local artist expressing an interest in purchasing a particular one of the artist’s sculptures for display at the library. The library’s agent and the artist executed a written contract that was signed by both parties and provided that the library would purchase the sculpture for $1,000 due upon delivery of the sculpture to the library. Just before they signed the contract, the agent told the artist, “Plan on delivering the sculpture in 10 days, but please remember that the library’s obligation to purchase the sculpture will be conditioned on the approval of the chairperson of the Artistic Patronage Council, as it will be providing the library with the funds for this sale.” The chairperson of the Artistic Patronage Council orally approved the sale the next day. However, 10 days after the contract was executed, the artist decided that he did not want to sell the sculpture.
If the library sues the artist for breach of contract, is the library likely to prevail?
Answers:
A) No, because the library’s agent made an illusory promise.
B) No, because there was no mutuality of remedy when the contract was executed.
C) Yes, because the agreement was supported by good consideration even though it was conditioned on an uncertain event.
D) Yes, because the artist waived any lack of consideration by signing the contract.
C) Yes, because the agreement was supported by good consideration even though it was conditioned on an uncertain event.
The owner of a bed and breakfast hired an artist to paint nature-themed murals in each of the five bedrooms. The contract provided that payment was due upon the satisfactory completion of all five rooms. The owner told the artist that each mural should relate to the name of the bedroom, but she otherwise gave the artist broad discretion in designing each mural. When the owner checked the artist’s progress a few weeks later, she found that although the murals in the three completed rooms related to the theme of the rooms, the color choices clashed with the overall décor of the bed and breakfast. The owner told the artist that she would accept his performance on the first three rooms, but she asked him to incorporate a different color palette in the remaining rooms. The artist, unwilling to compromise his artistic autonomy, refused to paint the remaining two rooms and immediately terminated the contract.
What is the artist entitled to recover from the owner of the bed and breakfast?
Answers:
A) Nothing, because the contract expressly provided that payment would be due upon the completion of all five rooms.
B) Nothing, because the murals in the three completed rooms clash with the overall décor of the bed and breakfast.
C) The artist’s expenditures in painting the first three rooms and the artist’s anticipated profit for painting the last two rooms.
D) The reasonable value of the artist’s services in painting the first three rooms, less any damages the owner may suffer from the artist’s failure to paint the last two rooms.
D) The reasonable value of the artist’s services in painting the first three rooms, less any damages the owner may suffer from the artist’s failure to paint the last two rooms.
A jeweler who specialized in engagement rings assisted a man who was trying to pick out the perfect engagement ring. The man was inexperienced with the various cuts of diamonds and types of ring settings. Over the course of a few weeks, the jeweler and the man looked at all of the ring styles and discussed pricing based on the man’s budget of $5,000. The man finally settled upon a square-cut diamond with a prong setting that was priced at $5,500. The man initially offered the jeweler $4,500 for the ring. While the man and the jeweler were negotiating the price, the jeweler received a phone call regarding a family emergency. The jeweler told the man that he would email him an offer in the evening, and if they could “meet halfway,” the jeweler would sell the ring to the man. The man agreed.
That evening, the jeweler and the man received emails from one another at the same time. The jeweler’s email contained an offer to sell the ring for $5,000, and the man’s email contained an offer to buy the ring for $5,000. Both emails (i) specified the same style of ring that the two parties had discussed earlier that day, (ii) required payment upon receipt of the ring in two weeks, and (iii) were signed with an electronic signature. Based upon their earlier discussions and the jeweler’s email offer to sell the ring to him for $5,000, the man did not look for an engagement ring at any other jewelry store. When the man showed up two weeks later to pick up and pay for the ring, the jeweler denied that they had a binding contract and would not sell the ring.
If the man sues the jeweler for breach of contract, which of the following most persuasively supports the man’s position?
Answers:
A) A sale-of-goods contract does not require that an acceptance be a mirror image of the offer.
B) Both parties conveyed an intent to contract with one another through prior negotiations and the simultaneous emails.
C) Since the jeweler was the only merchant in the transaction, the jeweler is estopped from denying that the parties’ correspondence created a binding contract.
D) The man detrimentally relied upon the jeweler’s offer to “meet halfway” and the email offer to sell the ring to him.
B) Both parties conveyed an intent to contract with one another through prior negotiations and the simultaneous emails.
A man was moving to another state and decided that he wanted to give away some of his belongings. The man knew that his brother had always expressed interest in the man’s antique desk. The man called the brother and said, “I’m going to be moving in two weeks. I would like to give you the antique desk as a gift. I’ll drop it off at your house on my way out of town.” The brother told the man that he was very grateful for the gift and was looking forward to having the desk in his home office. The brother, in reasonable reliance on the man’s promise, immediately disposed of his old desk and made room for the antique one.
A couple of days later, an appraiser, who was a friend of the man, visited the man’s house for dinner. While at his house, the appraiser saw the antique desk and informed the man that it was worth well over $20,000. The man decided to keep the desk and did not drop it off at the brother’s house on his way out of town.
The brother brought suit against the man to recover the antique desk.
If the court finds in favor of the man on these facts, what is the most likely reason?
Answers:
A) A promise to make a gift in the future cannot be enforced.
B) The brother did not rely to his detriment on the man’s promise.
C) The man’s promise was not in writing.
D) The man’s refusal to give the antique desk did not cause injustice.
D) The man’s refusal to give the antique desk did not cause injustice.
A company leased office space in a downtown building and subsequently entered into a written contract with a supplier to purchase furniture for the office. A dispute later arose over the tables and desks delivered by the supplier. The contract called for “cherry tables and desks” of designated designs. The company contended that the word “cherry” indicated the type of wood from which the tables and desks were made. The supplier, having delivered tables and desks made of a less expensive wood and finished with a cherry veneer, asserted that the use of the word “cherry” referred to the appearance of these items and did not require that the furniture be made solely of cherry wood. In the litigation of this dispute, the company sought to introduce a statement made by the supplier during negotiations that the tables and desks were of “solid-wood construction.”
In determining whether the parties intended the contract to be their final agreement, which of the following best reflects the rule of interpretation that the court should apply?
Answers:
A) The court can find that the contract is integrated only if it contains a merger clause.
B) The court is permitted to look only within the “four corners” of the document for evidence of intent.
C) The court must presume that the written contract is fully integrated.
D) The court should presume that the written contract is partially integrated.
D) The court should presume that the written contract is partially integrated.
A produce wholesaler sent a written offer to a farmer to purchase all of the corn that the wholesaler required for his business from the farmer for a period of two years. Excited at the prospect of having a guaranteed sale for his corn, the farmer immediately communicated his acceptance to the wholesaler. The wholesaler and the farmer entered into a written contract reflecting the basic terms set forth in the wholesaler’s offer.
Six months after the contract was executed, the wholesaler determined that, while the farmer’s corn was returning a profit, the farmer’s corn was not selling as well as corn that the wholesaler could acquire from other sources. The wholesaler contacted the farmer and informed him that he no longer required any of the farmer’s corn and would not be placing another order. The wholesaler immediately started buying his corn from another source.
If the farmer sues the wholesaler for breach of contract, is he likely to prevail?
Answers:
A) No, because the contract did not contain a specific quantity term.
B) No, because the wholesaler no longer needed the farmer’s goods.
C) Yes, because the farmer relied on the wholesaler’s promise.
D) Yes, because the wholesaler purchased corn from another source.
D) Yes, because the wholesaler purchased corn from another source.
Prior to her death, a celebrity commissioned an artist to paint a portrait of her. The celebrity hired this particular artist because he painted using an old-fashioned and rarely used style that required two months of daily appointments during which the subject would sit for a few hours each day. The contract between the parties specified that this live-model method would be used and that the celebrity would deliver increasing payments throughout the process, with the first payment occurring after two weeks of painting. One week into the process, after the painting had begun, the celebrity died. Her family demanded that the artist continue with the painting, using photographs as a substitute for the daily sessions.
Is the artist required to complete a painting of the celebrity?
Answers:
A) No, because no payment had yet occurred.
B) No, because the celebrity died after only one week.
C) Yes, because the artist can complete the painting by relying on photos of the celebrity.
D) Yes, because the artist had already begun painting the celebrity.
B) No, because the celebrity died after only one week.
An owner of a nail salon started a new promotion to boost sales. The owner advertised that she would pay $100 to any customer who purchased a new type of long-lasting manicure from her nail salon over the next four months if the customer’s manicure did not stay intact for an entire month. A woman purchased the advertised manicure during the promotional period per the terms set forth by the owner, but her manicure only stayed intact for three weeks. The woman tried to collect the $100 from the owner, but the owner refused to pay her.
Can the woman collect the $100?
Answers:
A) No, because the woman did not notify the owner that she was accepting the offer prior to purchasing the manicure.
B) No, because there was no bargained-for exchange.
C) Yes, because the woman accepted the offer by purchasing the long-lasting manicure during the promotional period.
D) Yes, because this was an enforceable bilateral contract.
C) Yes, because the woman accepted the offer by purchasing the long-lasting manicure during the promotional period.
A car salesman on the lot at a car dealership specializing in expensive, high-end vehicles called out with a megaphone, “Free set of wheels to the next person who buys a car from me!” He was surrounded by stacks of tires and a display case with informational pamphlets advertising all-weather tires. A customer believed that the car salesman was offering a two-for-one deal on the expensive vehicles sold on the lot. Therefore, the customer immediately approached the salesman and purchased a new vehicle for his son, believing that he would have a nice new car to give to his daughter as well. The salesman then asked if the customer would like his free set of tires installed on the new car. The customer responded that he did not want the tires and that the salesman was contractually obligated to give him a second car. The salesman laughed and said that he was never offering a free car but would cancel the sale of the first car as a consolation.
Is the salesman obligated to give the customer a free car?
Answers:
A) No, because no reasonable person would believe that the salesman was offering a free car.
B) No, because the salesman was willing to cancel the sale.
C) Yes, because only the customer has the right to avoid or reform the contract for misrepresentation.
D) Yes, because the customer honestly believed that the salesman was making a valid offer.
A) No, because no reasonable person would believe that the salesman was offering a free car.
A gardener and a carpenter contracted in writing for the carpenter to repair the gardener’s four identical beehives for $500 each. The contract was signed by both parties and provided that the gardener would pay the carpenter $2,000 upon delivery of the fourth repaired beehive. The gardener immediately delivered all four beehives to the carpenter for repair. The carpenter repaired and delivered the first two beehives without any problems and without demanding payment. However, upon delivery of the third repaired beehive, the carpenter demanded a payment of $1,500.
Is the gardener required to make the demanded payment at this time?
Answers:
A) No, because she has no duty to pay the carpenter anything until the last beehive is repaired and delivered.
B) No, because the course of performance between the parties has established that payment is not due upon the delivery of each repaired beehive.
C) Yes, because the carpenter is entitled to the fair value conferred on the gardener.
D) Yes, because the contract is divisible with respect to the repair and delivery of each beehive.
A) No, because she has no duty to pay the carpenter anything until the last beehive is repaired and delivered.
A homeowner met with a number of general contractors regarding significant renovations on his home. After a few successful meetings with one particular contractor, the homeowner received a letter from the contractor stating that he would perform the renovation work for $10,000. The homeowner responded with a letter stating that he would “only pay $8,500 and no more.” Upon receiving the homeowner’s letter, the contractor immediately bought the materials necessary to complete the renovation and began renovating the homeowner’s home.
One week after beginning work on the homeowner’s home, the contractor realized that the renovation would cost $1,600 more than he had anticipated due to the homeowner’s very particular aesthetic requirements. After being informed of the higher cost, the homeowner refused to pay the contractor any amount over $8,500. The contractor promptly discontinued working on the renovation. The homeowner subsequently brought a breach-of-contract action against the contractor, seeking damages.
Which party will likely prevail?
Answers:
A) The contractor, because the homeowner’s offer could only be accepted by a return promise.
B) The contractor, because the unexpected costs discharged his obligation to complete performance.
C) The homeowner, because his offer was effectively accepted by commencement of performance.
D) The homeowner, because the unilateral contract between the parties is enforceable.
C) The homeowner, because his offer was effectively accepted by commencement of performance.
