Ch. 10

Simone offers Brianna her bicycle for $75. Which of the following is an example of an illusory promise on the part of Brianna?

• "I'll take it, if I decide to do so."

• "I'll take it if you will let me try it out and the brakes work well."

• "I won't pay $75, but I will pay $50."

• "I'll take it."

• "I'll take it if you will buy new tires."

Victor robbed Safe Bank of a significant sum of cash. Safe Bank offered a reward of $10,000 for anyone who captured or provided information leading to the capture of Victor. Ted, a police officer in town, promised Safe Bank officials that he would apprehend Victor. While on duty, Ted arrested Victor. The bank refuses to pay Ted any of the reward money. Which of the following is true regarding the bank's decision not to pay Ted the reward?

• Ted is obligated not to ask the bank for the reward.

• The bank is obligated to pay because Ted provided value to the bank in apprehending Victor.

• The bank is obligated to pay because Ted provided a service to the bank in apprehending Victor.

• The bank is not obligated to pay because Ted used past consideration in the agreement to apprehend Victor.

• The bank is not obligated to pay because Ted had a preexisting duty to apprehend criminals like Victor.

Sydney goes to have her hair trimmed and agrees to pay $40 to the stylist. While there, Sydney decides that she would also like highlights. The stylist informs her that highlights will cost an additional $30. Sydney agrees to the price, gets the highlights, but refuses to pay the extra amount. What is the likely result in a dispute between Sydney and the stylist, and why?

• The stylist will win unless Sydney can show that she had previously received both a trim and highlights for $40. If she can prove that she previously received both for $40, then the past expectations rule applies.

• Sydney will win because the stylist had a preexisting duty to have her hair looking as good as possible.

• The stylist will win because she did additional work in exchange for the extra payment and, therefore, a valid unilateral contract existed.

• The stylist will win because she did additional work in exchange for the extra payment and, therefore, Sydney's promise was supported by valid consideration.

• Sydney will win because there was no valid consideration in exchange for the highlighting.

Yolanda agrees to bathe and groom Wendy's dog, Fluffy, for $20. Yolanda agreed to the price before seeing Fluffy, a very plump, grouchy Pembroke Welsh Corgi dog with lots of hair. Yolanda tells Wendy that if she is going to groom Fluffy, the price will be $30. Wendy agrees although noting that the dog is named "Fluffy." Yolanda bathes and grooms Fluffy, but Wendy will only pay $20. Which of the following is correct regarding Yolanda's entitlement to the extra $10?

• Yolanda is entitled to the extra $10 because a valid unilateral contract existed.

• Assuming the unforeseen circumstances rule is inapplicable, Yolanda is not entitled to the extra $10 because past consideration was involved.

• Assuming the unforeseen circumstances rule is inapplicable, Yolanda is not entitled to the extra $10 because Wendy's promise to pay $30 was illusory.

• Assuming the unforeseen circumstances rule is inapplicable, Yolanda is not entitled to the extra $10 because she had a preexisting duty to bathe and groom Fluffy for $20.

• Yolanda is entitled to the extra $10 because a valid bilateral contract existed.

Coco, who does not keep up with the price of current technology, agrees to buy a used computer from Jakob for $2,500. Later, Coco's brother tells her that she made a really bad deal and that she could get an even better new computer for no more than $1,000. Coco tells Jakob that she is not giving him any money because he was not fair with her. Which of the following is the most likely result if Jakob sues Coco alleging breach of contract?

• Jakob will win only if he can establish that the brother is wrong and that the deal was actually reasonable.

• Coco will win if she can establish that she made a bad deal and that truly she was not aware of current prices of computers.

• Coco will win if she can establish that she paid at least 50% more than the computer was actually worth.

• Jakob will win because the court would not weigh whether a good bargain was made.

• Coco will win if she can establish that she paid at least 75% more than the computer was actually worth.