MCQ's Flashcards
W1Q1/Q2/Q3
On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school:
The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean’s office before next May 1.
(The National Competition is conducted by an outside agency, unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean’s office a signed note saying, “I accept the faculty’s $500 Obscenity Competition offer.” This note was inadvertently placed in Student’s file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor:
The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn.
Student’s paper was submitted through the Dean’s office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything.
- Assuming that the faculty’s notice of November 1 was posted on a bulletin board or other conspicuous place commonly viewed by all persons in the law school, such notice constituted a:
(A) Preliminary invitation to deal, analogous to newspaper advertisements for the sale of goods by merchants.
*(B) Contractual offer, creating a power of acceptance.
(C) Preliminary invitation, because no offeree was named therein.
(D) Promise to make a conditional, future gift of money.
- The offer proposed a:
*(A) Unilateral contract only.
(B) Bilateral contract only.
(C) Unilateral contract or bilateral contract, at the offeree’s option.
(D) Unilateral contract which ripened into a bilateral contract, binding on both parties, as soon as Student intensified his effort in response to the offer.
- As to Student, was the offer effectively revoked?
(A) Yes, by the faculty’s second notice.
(B) No, because it became irrevocable after a reasonable time had elapsed.
*(C) No, because of Student’s reliance, prior to April 1, on the offer.
(D) No, unless Student became aware of the April 1 posting and removal before submitting his paper.
W1Q4
In a telephone call on March 1, Adams, an unemployed, retired person, said to Dawes, “I will sell my automobile for $3,000 cash. I will hold this offer open through March 14.” On March 12, Adams called Dawes and told her that he had sold the automobile to Clark. Adams in fact had not sold the automobile to anyone. On March 14, Dawes learned that Adams still owned the automobile, and on that date called Adams and said, “I’m coming over to your place with $3,000.” Adams replied, “Don’t bother. I won’t deliver the automobile to you under any circumstances.” Dawes protested, but made no further attempt to pay for or take delivery of the automobile.
In an action by Dawes against Adams for breach of contract, Dawes probably will:
(A) Succeed, because Adams had assured her that the offer would remain open through March 14.
(B) Succeed, because Adams had not in fact sold the automobile to Clark.
(C) Not succeed, because Dawes had not tendered the $3,000 to Adams on or before March 14.
*(D) Not succeed, because on March 12, Adams had told Dawes that he had sold the automobile to Clark.
W1Q5
After several days of negotiations, Ohner wrote to Plummer: “Will pay you $3,000 if you will install new plumbing in my office building according to the specifications I have sent you. I must have your reply by March 30.” Plummer replied by a letter that Ohner received on March 15: “Will not do it for less than $3,500.” On March 20, Plummer wrote to Ohner: “Have changed my mind. I will do the work for $3,000. Unless I hear from you to the contrary, I will begin work on April 5.” Ohner received this letter on March 22 but did not reply to it. Plummer, without Ohner’s knowledge, began the work on April 5.
Which of the following best characterizes the legal relationship between Ohner and Plummer as of April 5?
(A) A contract was formed on March 20 when Plummer posted his letter.
(B) A contract was formed on March 22 when Ohner received Plummer’s letter.
(C) A contract was formed on April 5 when Plummer began work.
*(D) There was no contract between the parties as of April 5.
W1Q6
On January 1, Shaftum and Howe Realty Corp. mailed a written offer to Martin Enterprises for the sale of a large tract of land. The offer included the following terms:
This offer expires on February 1, if the offeree has not caused an acceptance to be received by the offeror on or before that date.
The first thing in the morning, on February 1, Martin sent a telegram of acceptance but the telegraph company negligently withheld delivery to Shaftum until February 2. On February 4, Shaftum entered into a contract for sale of the tract to another buyer but did not inform Martin of the transaction. As a result, Martin contacted Shaftum by phone on February 10 and was told that no contract between Shaftum and Martin would be created.
Which of the following is the most correct statement?
*(A) No contract between Shaftum and Martin arose on February 2.
(B) A contract would have arisen if a letter of acceptance were mailed on February 1.
(C) Shaftum’s silence constituted an acceptance of Martin’s telegram on February 2.
(D) A voidable contract arose on February 1.
W1Q7/Q8
Fox mailed the following offer to Sack, a designated offeree: “I hereby offer to sell my property consisting of a house and lot at 337 Green Street for $100,000. Terms $30,000 cash, the balance secured by a first mortgage. Advise immediately if you accept.” This offer was mailed on February 3, and reached Sack on February 5. On February 8, Sack replied: “Your offer received and under advisement. I would much prefer a straight cash deal. Would you consider an immediate purchase for $90,000 cash?” On February 10, this reply was received by Fox, who responded with a one-word telegram: “No.” Receiving this telegram on February 11, Sack wired: “Telegram received. I accept your offer of February 3. Tender the deed c/o my agent, The First National Bank of Commerce.”
- If Fox now refuses to sell and Sack sues, the court would probably hold:
*(A) A valid contract exists.
(B) No contract exists because Sack’s response of February 8 operated to terminate Fox’s offer.
(C) No contract exists because Sack’s communications to Fox both contained alterations of the terms of the offer.
(D) No contract exists because the offer relates to real estate, and the communications fail to establish the terms of the proposed agreement with sufficient definiteness.
- Assume that the day after Fox mailed his offer to Sack, Fox mailed a revocation which arrived one day after the offer. As the mail carrier handed the letter of revocation to Sack, Sack simultaneously handed his letter of unqualified acceptance to the mail carrier. What result?
(A) The revocation was effective upon mailing, and the acceptance would be treated as a counteroffer.
(B) The acceptance was effective, as long as Sack had no knowledge of the contents of Fox’s letter when he handed his letter to the mail carrier.
*(C) The outcome would turn upon the court’s determination as to whether Fox’s letter had been received by Sack before he had entrusted the letter of acceptance to the mail carrier.
(D) Handing a letter to a mail carrier is not a proper posting of the acceptance, and hence Sack’s purported acceptance is not timely.
W2Q1
Debbie owns a sporting goods store. On April 1, she noticed that her tent stock was running low. After consulting her manufacturers’ catalogues, she decided to order from Oilman, a large manufacturer of camping equipment. The Oilman catalogue listed the 9x12 tent that Debbie wanted, at a cost of $70. Debbie phoned Oilman and placed her order for 10 tents. The next day, Oilman mailed Debbie a letter informing her that the tents were now $72 and that they would be shipped to her on April 16. Debbie received the letter on April 4, but never responded. On April 15, Debbie received a catalogue from another tent company showing tents similar to the ones that she ordered, but for a cost of $50. She immediately called Oilman to cancel her order. Nevertheless, Oilman shipped the tents to Debbie on April 16.
Assume that the parties’ communications were sufficient to form a contract. On what day was the contract formed?
(A) April 1, the day Debbie placed her order.
*(B) April 2, the day Oilman sent its letter.
(C) April 4, the day Debbie received the letter.
(D) April 16, the day the tents were shipped.
W2Q2
Ted owned bowling lanes and needed to buy some new bowling balls. On February 1, he read an ad from FMA, a major manufacturer of bowling balls, that they were having a special on balls: 40 balls in various weights and drilled in various sizes for $10 per ball. Ted immediately filled out the order form for the 40 balls and deposited it, properly stamped and addressed, into the mail. The very next day, Ted received in the mail a letter from FMA, sent out as part of their advertising campaign, stating in relevant part that they will sell Ted 40 bowling balls at $10 per ball. On February 3, FMA received Ted’s order. On February 4, the balls were shipped.
On what day did an enforceable contract arise?
(A) February 1, the day Ted deposited his order in the mail.
(B) February 2, the day Ted received the letter from FMA.
(C) February 3, the day FMA received Ted’s letter.
*(D) February 4, the day the balls were shipped.
W2Q3
Archie’s Typewriter Exchange advertised used Regal Typewriters for sale at its store, for $100 each. Barney, whose business is 250 miles away, mailed Archie a check for $500 with a note stating, “Send me five of the used Regal Typewriters you advertised.”
Upon checking his stock, Archie found that he had only two Regals left, but he had plenty of Overwoods, and therefore he sent Barney two Regals and three Overwoods by common carrier.
The legal effect of Archie’s shipment of the two Regals and three Overwoods in response to Barney’s order for five Regals was:
(A) An acceptance of Barney’s offer with respect to the two Regals, and a counteroffer as to the three Overwoods.
*(B) An acceptance of Barney’s offer to purchase five Regals, and a breach of the contract formed thereby.
(C) Neither an acceptance nor a counteroffer, because a mere shipment of goods is not a manifestation of assent to any particular terms.
(D) A mere offer to furnish substituted goods as an accommodation.
W2Q4/Q5
Wrangler was a famous breeder of racehorses who owned Sir Marathon and Lady Luck, both retired sweepstakes champions. Bettum owned a racing stable and was anxious to obtain the offspring of Wrangler’s horses for his stable.
After considerable negotiations, Wrangler and Bettum signed the following document:
It is hereby agreed that Bettum shall have the first right to purchase all colts foaled out of Lady Luck by Sir Marathon during the next three years. Price to be determined on the basis of sex, weight, height, and bone structure at time of delivery.
Six months later, the first colt was born to Lady Luck, and it had all the markings of a champion. Bettum immediately tendered $25,000 to Wrangler for the colt, which was a good faith approximation of its value. However, Wrangler refused to deliver the colt unless Bettum paid $100,000. Bettum sued Wrangler.
- If Wrangler defends on the ground that there is no enforceable contract obligating him to sell, the court would most likely hold:
(A) There is no enforceable contract because Bettum was not obligated in any way under the signed writing.
(B) There is an enforceable contract because, by signing the document, Bettum impliedly promised to purchase.
*(C) Even if the writing was not an enforceable contract, Bettum’s good faith tender of $25,000 created an enforceable contract.
(D) The agreement is enforceable as a firm offer between merchants under the U.C.C.
- Assume that there is otherwise an enforceable contract. If Wrangler defends on the ground that no price was fixed in the agreement and the parties have been unable to agree on a price, the court should hold:
*(A) Bettum is entitled to purchase the colt at whatever price the court determines to be reasonable.
(B) The provision requiring the price to be negotiated can be enforced by appointment of an arbitrator to set the price.
(C) Bettum is entitled to purchase the colt for $25,000.
(D) Bettum is entitled to purchase the colt for $100,000.
W2Q6/Q7
Argon, a merchant, telephoned Bismuth, also a merchant, and said, “I’ve got 5,000 pounds of thingamabobs ready for delivery [at a stated price].” Bismuth agreed to purchase the thingamabobs, but stated that he wanted Argon to deliver 2,000 pounds now and 3,000 pounds next month. Delivery costs are based on weight alone. No further communications ensued between the parties.
- The most likely result of the conversation between Argon and Bismuth is:
*(A) A contract was formed to deliver 2,000 pounds now and 3,000 pounds next month.
(B) A contract was formed to deliver 5,000 pounds now.
(C) No contract was formed, because Bismuth’s response was merely a counteroffer and a rejection.
(D) No contract was formed, unless Argon notified Bismuth within a reasonable time of his assent to the proposed schedule of delivery.
- Assume for purposes of this question only that Argon answered Bismuth’s request for separate deliveries by saying he would only ship the entire 5,000 pounds now. If Argon then tenders the 5,000 pounds, Bismuth:
(A) May reject the entire delivery.
*(B) Must accept the entire delivery.
(C) May demand that Argon deliver only 2,000 pounds now and 3,000 pounds next month.
(D) Must accept or reject the entire delivery.
W3Q1/Q2/Q3
Brill saved the life of Ace’s wife, Mary, who thereafter changed her will to leave Brill $1,000. However, upon Mary’s death she had no property except an undivided interest in real estate held in tenancy by the entirety with Ace. The property had been purchased by Ace from an inheritance.
After Mary died, Ace signed and delivered to Brill the following instrument: “In consideration of Brill’s saving my wife’s life and his agreement to bring no claims against my estate based on her will, I hereby promise to pay Brill $1,000.”
Upon Ace’s death, Brill filed a claim for $1,000. Ace’s executor contested the claim on the ground that the instrument was not supported by sufficient consideration.
- In most states, would Brill’s saving of Mary’s life be regarded as sufficient consideration for Ace’s promise?
(A) Yes, because Ace was thereby morally obligated to Brill.
(B) Yes, because Ace was thereby materially benefited.
*(C) No, because Ace had not asked Brill to save her.
(D) No, because the value of Brill’s act was too uncertain.
- With respect to the recital that Brill had agreed not to file a claim against Ace’s estate, what additional fact would most strengthen Brill’s claim?
(A) Brill’s agreement was made in a writing he signed.
*(B) Brill reasonably believed he had a valid claim when the instrument was signed.
(C) Mary had contributed to accumulation of the real property.
(D) Brill paid Ace $1 when he received the instrument.
- On which of the following theories would it be most likely that Brill could recover?
*(A) Ace and Brill have made a compromise.
(B) Ace must give restitution for benefits it would be unjust to retain.
(C) Ace is bound by promissory estoppel.
(D) Ace executed a binding unilateral contract.
W3Q4/Q5
When Esther, Gray’s 21-year-old daughter, finished college, Gray handed her a signed memorandum stating that if she would go to law school for three academic years, he would pay her tuition, room, and board, and would “give her a $1,000 bonus” for each “A” she got in law school.
Esther’s uncle, Miller, who was present on this occasion, read the memorandum and thereupon said to Esther, “and if he doesn’t pay your expenses, I will.”
Gray paid her tuition, room, and board for her first year but died just before the end of that year. Subsequently, Esther learned that she had received two “A’s” in the second semester. The executor of Gray’s estate has refused to pay her anything for the two “A’s” and has told her that the estate will no longer pay her tuition, room, and board in law school.
- In an action against Gray’s estate for $2,000 on account of the two “A’s,” if the only defense raised is lack of consideration, Esther probably will:
(A) Succeed under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
*(B) Succeed on a theory of bargained-for exchange for her father’s promise.
(C) Not succeed, because the $1,000 for each “A” was promised only as a bonus.
(D) Not succeed, because Esther was already legally obligated to use her best efforts in law school.
- In an action by Esther against Miller on account of the executor’s repudiation of Gray’s promise to pay future tuition, room, and board, which of the following would be Miller’s strongest defense?
(A) The parties did not manifestly intend a contract.
(B) Gray’s death terminated the agreement.
*(C) The agreement was oral.
(D) The agreement was divisible.
W3Q6
Baker, the seller, authorized Smith in writing to sign a contract for the sale and purchase of land for him. Arthur, the buyer, orally authorized Thomas to sign the contract for him. Smith and Thomas signed the contract: “Baker by Smith, his agent” and “Arthur by Thomas, his agent.”
Arthur refuses to complete the purchase. Baker sues Arthur who pleads the Statute of Frauds. Baker will:
(A) Win, because the sales contract was in writing.
(B) Win, because his agency contract was in writing.
(C) Lose, because he did not sign the contract personally.
*(D) Lose, because Arthur’s agency contract was not in writing.
W3Q7
Arthur owns a 500-acre farm on which his dwelling is situated. He enters into the following written agreement:
I, Arthur, agree to sell Walter my dwelling and a sufficient amount of land surrounding the same to accommodate a garden and lawn. Price: $20,000. Received: $1 on account.
Signed: “Walter” “Arthur”
Walter refuses to perform the agreement. Arthur sues for specific performance. Judgment for:
(A) Arthur, because he has a written agreement signed by the party to be charged therewith.
(B) Arthur, because the agreement satisfies the Statute of Frauds.
*(C) Walter, because the agreement is ambiguous.
(D) Walter, because $1 constitutes a nominal consideration which will not support a contract.
W4Q1
Warren lived in City and Joshua lived in the small town of Hamlet, about 25 miles away. Both had attended college together in City; Warren had studied accounting and went to work for a large corporation; Joshua studied agronomy and went to work for a large corporate farm. On March 15, Warren wrote the following letter to Joshua:
Dear Joshua,
Remember that 1966 Mustang you were always pestering me to sell to you? I have decided to part with it and will let you have it for $15,000, if you buy it before April 15. After that, the deal’s off.
Your pal, Warren
Joshua did some research into the current market value of the automobile and discovered that comparable vehicles were being sold by used car dealers for $18,000. On April 1, Joshua was just leaving his home to drive to City and give Warren a check for $15,000 when he received a telegram from Warren stating: “Forget about sale of Mustang. Have decided not to sell as indicated in letter of March 15.” Joshua drove into City anyway, and went to Warren’s residence. The Mustang was parked out front with a “for sale” sign in its window. Joshua stopped, knocked at the door, and when Warren answered, tendered the $15,000 check and demanded the Mustang. Warren refused.
Joshua brings an action for damages for breach of contract against Warren. What should be the outcome of this litigation?
*(A) Joshua will recover nothing, because the offer to sell the Mustang was withdrawn before he accepted.
(B) Joshua will recover $15,000, because Warren has failed to perform under the contract of sale.
(C) Joshua will recover $3,000, because his tender of the purchase price was an acceptance of Warren’s offer.
(D) Joshua will recover $3,000, because Warren’s letter created an enforceable option.
