A wedding-dress designer, wanting to expand her business, emailed several local bridal shops on June 1 to inquire about the shops’ interest in buying some of her excess inventory of dresses. The owner of a local boutique was very interested. Like the designer, the boutique owner dealt regularly in wedding dresses. The boutique owner replied by return email on June 2, stating that the boutique would buy 25 wedding dresses from the designer for $500 per dress, with delivery to the boutique on June 15. The designer replied by email on June 3 that she agreed but that she could not deliver until June 20. Did a contract form?

Yes, because the designer accepted the boutique owner’s June 2 offer in the designer’s June 3 email.

Yes, because the boutique owner accepted the designer’s June 1 offer in the boutique owner’s June 2 email.

No, because the designer’s June 3 email contained different terms to those in the boutique owner’s June 2 email.

No, because the designer and the boutique owner are both merchants who deal regularly in wedding dresses.

An aunt knew that her nephew was unhappy working as an accountant. The aunt orally told the nephew that if he quit his job, the aunt would pay him $35,000 to help cover his expenses while he looked for a new career. The aunt never put the offer in writing. After thinking about the offer for two days, the nephew quit his job. However, the aunt’s daughter convinced the aunt to reduce the payment amount to only $1,000. It took the nephew four months to find a new job. The nephew sued to force the aunt to pay him the remaining $34,000. The aunt argued that the payment promise was not enforceable. How is a court most likely to rule?

The payment promise is enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

The payment promise is unenforceable under the statute of frauds.

The payment promise is unenforceable because the aunt’s promise was illusory.

The payment promise is enforceable under the doctrine of procedural unconscionability.

When a woman’s dog went missing, she posted missing-dog fliers around the neighborhood. The fliers offered a $200 reward for anyone who returned the dog to her. The next day, a man walking in the neighborhood saw the dog and recognized it as belonging to the woman. The man took the dog to the woman’s house and returned it to her. Neither party made any mention of the reward. Later that afternoon, the man saw one of the missing-dog fliers for the first time. Upset that the woman did not pay him $200, he went back to her house and demanded the money. Is the woman obligated to pay the man the $200 reward?

No, because the man did not know of the reward offer at the time he returned the dog.

No, because the fliers did not specifically target the man as the intended offeree.

Yes, because the woman received the benefit of the man’s service of returning her dog.

Yes, because the reward offer invited performance as a valid acceptance.

Under the terms of a written contract, a builder agreed to construct a garage for a homeowner for $10,000. Nothing was stated in the parties' negotiations or in the contract about progress payments during the course of the work. After completing 25 percent of the garage according to the homeowner's specifications, the builder demanded $2,000 as a reasonable progress payment. The homeowner refused, and the builder abandoned the job. If each party sues the other for breach of contract, which of the following will the court decide?

Only the builder is in breach and liable for the homeowner's damages, if any.

Both parties are in breach, and each is entitled to damages, if any, from the

Only the homeowner is in breach and liable for the builder's damages, if any.

Both parties took reasonable positions, and neither is in breach.

A motorcycle collector and his friend had known each other for years. The collector sent a letter to the friend that said, "I am willing to sell you my oldest motorcycle for $4,000." The friend sent the collector an email saying, "I accept your offer." The collector owned three motorcycles: a 1985 model, a 1987 model, and a 1992 model. The friend did not know about the 1985 model, which was the one the collector intended to sell. The collector was unaware that the friend intended to buy the 1987 model. When the collector tendered the 1985 model, the friend refused to accept it. Is the friend likely to prevail in a breach of contract suit against the collector?

No, because neither the friend nor the collector had reason to know of the other's interpretation of the words "oldest motorcycle."

No, because by not inquiring further about the meaning of the phrase "oldest motorcycle" the friend assumed the risk of being mistaken.

Yes, because the friend had no reason to know of the collector's meaning and the collector could have avoided the confusion by more careful drafting.

Yes, so long as a reasonable person in the friend's position would have considered the letter as referring to the 1987 model.

A man obtained a bid of $10,000 to tear down an old structure on his newly purchased farm and another bid of $90,000 to replace it with a structure in which the man planned to house a new herd of dairy cows. Having only limited cash available, the man asked his uncle for a $100,000 loan. The next day, the man's uncle in a signed writing promised to lend the man $100,000 repayable over 10 years in equal monthly installments at 10% annual interest. The man promptly accepted the demolition bid and the old structure was removed, but the uncle thereafter refused to make the loan. Despite diligent efforts, the man was unable to obtain a loan from any other source. In a successful claim for monetary relief against the uncle based on promissory estoppel, what is the probable measure of the man's recovery?

Reliance damages, measured by the $10,000 expense of removing the old structure, adjusted by the decrease or increase in the market value of the man's land immediately thereafter.

Expectancy damages, measured by the difference between the value of the new structure and the old structure, less the amount of the proposed loan ($100,000).

Expectancy damages, measured by the estimated profits from operating the dairy farm for 10 years, less the cost of repaying a $100,000 loan at 10% interest over 10 years.

Nominal damages only, because both expectancy and reliance damages are speculative.

On November 15, a carpenter in a signed writing contracted with a homeowner for an agreed price to personally remodel the homeowner's kitchen according to specifications provided by the homeowner, and to start work on December 1. The carpenter agreed to provide all materials for the job in addition to all of the labor required. On November 26, the carpenter without legal excuse repudiated the contract. After a reasonable and prolonged effort, the homeowner could not find anyone to remodel his kitchen for a price approximating the price agreed to by the carpenter. One year later, the homeowner brings an action for specific performance against the carpenter. Which of the following will provide the carpenter with the best defense?

Specific performance is not available as a remedy to enforce a contractual duty to perform personal services.

An action for equitable relief not brought within a reasonable time is barred by laches.

Specific performance is generally not available as a remedy in the case of an anticipatory repudiation.

Specific performance is not available as a remedy where even nominal damages could have been recovered as a remedy at law.

A buyer contracted with a seller to purchase 10,000 bushels of soybeans at market price. The soybeans were to be delivered in 90 days. Two days after the soybean contract was made, the buyer and the seller entered into another contract under which the buyer agreed to purchase 10,000 bushels of wheat from the seller at market price. Before the time for delivery of the soybeans, the seller notified the buyer that it would not deliver the wheat because the seller's wheat supplier had refused to extend additional credit to the seller and therefore the seller had no wheat available for the buyer. Which of the following statements best describes the effect of the seller's repudiation of the wheat contract on the buyer's rights under the soybean contract?

It gives the buyer the right to demand assurances that the seller will perform the soybean contract.

It gives the buyer the right to terminate the soybean contract, because of the doctrine of dependent covenants.

It gives the buyer the right to terminate the soybean contract, because the buyer does not have to deal with a party that breaches a contract.

It has no effect on the buyer's rights, because the two contracts are entirely separate.

An elderly woman underwent major surgery and spent two weeks in the hospital. The woman continued to take powerful pain medication for several weeks after she returned home. During her recovery, she offered to sell her car for $450 to her neighbor, who owned a house-cleaning service. The neighbor said, "That's great! I need a car to transport all the people who work for me to their job sites." In fact, the woman's car was worth $3,000, and the neighbor knew this. He was also aware that the woman had undergone surgery and noted that she seemed "out of it" because of the medication she was taking. Several days later, the woman's son found out about the deal and contacted the neighbor, telling him that the woman would sell him the car, but for $3,450. The next day, when the neighbor tendered $450 and demanded that the woman give him the car, she refused. If the neighbor sues the woman for breach of contract, will he be likely to prevail?

No, because the contract was voidable due to the woman's apparent incapacity.

No, because the woman put nothing in writing.

Yes, because the neighbor's reliance on the otherwise voidable contract made it enforceable.

Yes, because the woman's offer and the neighbor's acceptance created an enforceable contract.

A brick mason was hired by a builder under a written one-year contract, at an annual salary of $45,000, with employment to begin on March 1. Because the builder was unable to secure enough building contracts to keep all its employees busy during the season beginning March 1, it notified the brick mason on February 15 that it could not afford to employ him as a mason. At the same time, however, the builder offered to employ the mason, for the same contract period, as a night guard at an annual salary of $25,000. The mason declined the offer and remained unemployed during the year. No employment for brick masons was available in the community during the year, but the mason could have obtained other employment as a day laborer that would have paid up to $25,000 a year. At the end of the year, in an action against the builder for breach of contract, how much, if anything, is the mason entitled to recover?

$20,000 (the $45,000 contract price less the $25,000 the mason could have earned in other employment).

Nothing, because the builder did not act in bad faith when it discharged the mason.

Nothing, because the mason did not mitigate his

A dealer needed a certain rare baseball card to complete a set that he had contracted to assemble and sell to a collector. On March 1, the dealer obtained such a card from a woman in exchange for $1,000 and a written promise to redeliver to the woman "no later than December 31 of this year" a comparable specimen of the same kind of card. On March 2, the dealer consummated the sale of the complete set to the collector. On September 1, the market price of rare baseball cards suddenly began a rapid, sustained rise. On September 10, the woman wrote the dealer for assurance that the dealer would timely meet his card-replacement commitment to her. On September 15, the dealer telephoned the woman and said, "I absolutely will not replace your card until the market drops far below its present level." The woman sued the dealer on October 15 for the market value of a comparable replacement-card. If the dealer moves to dismiss the woman's complaint, which of the following is the woman's best argument in opposing the motion?

The dealer breached an implied warranty by failing to supply the baseball card.

The woman complied with her duty to mitigate her losses by promptly suing when the market rose.

The woman may resort to any appropriate remedy for breach of contract because the dealer repudiated his performance.

The woman may treat the dealer's anticipatory repudiation as an immediately actionable tort.

On June 1, a woman telegraphed a vendor, "At what price will you sell 100 of your basic garbage-disposal units for delivery around June 10?" On June 2, the vendor telegraphed the woman, "You're in luck. We have only 100 basic garbage-disposal units, all on clearance at 50% off usual wholesale of $120 per unit, for delivery at our shipping platform on June 12." On June 5, the vendor received a letter from the woman that stated, "I accept. Would prefer to pay in full 30 days after invoice." On June 6, the woman received a telegram from the vendor that stated, "You must pick up at our platform and pay upon delivery." On June 9, the vendor received a letter from the woman that stated, "I don't deal with people who can't accommodate my simple requests." On June 10, the vendor received a telegram from the woman that stated, "Okay. I'm over a barrel and will pick up the goods on your terms on June 12." The vendor had sold all 100 of the units to another buyer earlier that day. The woman sued the vendor for breach of contract. Which of the following arguments will best serve the vendor's defense?

The woman's letter on June 9 was an unequivocal refusal to perform that excused the vendor even if the parties had previously formed a contract.

The vendor's telegraph on June 2 was merely a price quotation, not an offer.

The woman's letter on June 5 was not an acceptance because it varied from the terms of the vendor's initial telegraph.

The woman's use of the mail in response to the vendor's initial telegraph was an ineffective method of acceptance.

A regional garden center regularly purchases plants from various sources to sell to its customers. In January, the garden center entered into a contract to purchase a specific quantity of fruit tree saplings from a supplier. The contract called for the saplings to be delivered in 90 days, with payment due on delivery. Coincidentally, shortly after this contract was executed, the garden center contracted with a nursery to purchase additional saplings for the upcoming spring. Unbeknownst to the garden center, the nursery was the supplier's primary source of fruit tree saplings. As a consequence of the garden center's purchase of fruit tree saplings from the nursery, the nursery ran out of saplings, and the supplier could not obtain the required number of saplings by the delivery date. Instead, the supplier delivered only half of the required number of fruit tree saplings to the garden center on the delivery date. Has the supplier breached its contract with the garden center?

Yes, because the supplier failed to deliver the required number of saplings on the delivery date.

No, because the garden center's purchase of saplings from the nursery prevented the supplier from meeting its contractual obligation.

No, because the supplier delivered as many saplings as it could in good faith obtain.

Yes, because merchants do not have the obligation to deal in good faith with one another.

A collector agreed to sell his collection of authentic extras' costumes from a cult-classic 80's show to a costume store for $10,000, payable one month after the collection was delivered to the store via a third-party carrier. Due to the time and expense that went into accumulating and repairing the costumes, the collector expected a $2,000 profit. The costumes suffered minor water damage in transit, and the store immediately notified the collector that it was rejecting the collection and would hold the collection until the collector picked it up. The collector told the store that he would look for a new buyer and would pick up the collection in a few weeks. The collector quickly found another buyer willing to pay the original contract price. However, before the collector could retrieve the collection, the store sold and delivered the costumes to a theater company that knowingly accepted the costumes despite the water damage. The theater company paid the store $15,000 for the collection, and the store retained the payment. If the store's sale of the costumes was NOT an acceptance, what is the highest-value remedy available to the collector?

$15,000, damages for conversion.

$2,000, the collector's lost profit.

$5,000, the difference between the market price and the contract price.

$10,000, the collector-store contract price.

A professional race car driver decided to retire and sell his drag racing car. An amateur driver approached him about buying the car. The amateur driver explained that she needed a car that could complete a quarter-mile race in less than nine seconds, and the professional driver boasted that his car could do so in eight to nine seconds. Unbeknownst to the professional driver, there was a calibration error in his timing equipment, and the car had never completed a quarter-mile race in less than 10 seconds. The two drivers settled on a price and signed a fully integrated, written contract. The amateur driver paid the sales price, took delivery of the car, and entered the next drag race. The car was unable to complete a quarter-mile race in less than 10 seconds, so the amateur driver contacted the professional driver and demanded her money back. Is the professional driver obligated to return the amateur driver's money?

Yes, because the professional driver's assertion was a material misrepresentation.

No, because the professional driver's assertion was an unintentional misrepresentation.

No, because the sales contract was memorialized in a fully integrated writing.

Yes, because the professional driver's assertion was a fraudulent misrepresentation.

A contractor was supervising a crew of subcontractors during a house renovation. The contractor saw one of the subcontractors, a carpenter, steal a watch from the house. The contractor said nothing about the theft, and the crew finished the work and left. Several weeks later, the contractor was hired to renovate another house. The contractor called the carpenter and said that he would need the carpenter to do this job for 25% less than his previous rate. The reduced rate reflected the market value of the work, but the carpenter refused. The contractor then told the carpenter that he had seen the carpenter steal the watch and that he would notify the police if the carpenter did not agree to the contractor's terms. The carpenter agreed to do the work for the lower rate. The carpenter never showed up to perform any work at the second house. If the contractor sues the carpenter for breach of contract, will the contractor be likely to prevail?

No, because the contractor threatened to notify the police that the carpenter had stolen the watch.

No, because the contractor did not notify the police immediately after he saw the carpenter steal the watch.

Yes, because the contractor's proposed rate, which reflected the fair market value of the carpenter's work, was not unconscionable.

Yes, because the contractor was legally authorized to notify the police that the carpenter had stolen the watch.

A homeowner and a contractor entered into a contract for the construction of a home for $300,000. The contractor was to earn a profit of $10,000 for the job. After the contractor had spent $45,000 on labor and materials, including $5,000 on oak flooring not yet installed, the homeowner informed the contractor that the homeowner had lost her job and could not pay the contractor for his services. The homeowner told the contractor to stop working immediately. The reasonable market value of the labor and materials provided by the contractor at that point, including the oak flooring, was $40,000. The contractor used the oak flooring on another job. In an action by the contractor against the homeowner for damages, which of the following would be the argest amount of damages recoverable by the contractor?

$50,000, the contractor's construction costs of $45,000 plus the $10,000 profit minus the $5,000 saved by reusing the oak flooring on another job.

$40,000, the contractor's construction costs.

$40,000, the reasonable value of the services the contractor had provided.

$55,000, the contractor's construction costs of $45,000 plus the $10,000 profit.

A man who knew nothing about horses inherited a thoroughbred colt whose disagreeable behavior made him a pest around the barn. The man sold the horse for $1,500 to a buyer who was an experienced racehorse-trainer and knew of the man's ignorance about horses. At the time of sale, the man said to the buyer, "' hate to say it, but this horse is bad-tempered and nothing special." Which one of the following scenarios would best support an action by the buyer to rescind the sale?

In his first race after the sale, the horse galloped to a huge lead but dropped dead 100 yards from the finish line because of a rare congenital heart defect that was undiscoverable except by autopsy.

A week after the sale, the horse went berserk and inflicted injuries upon the buyer that required his hospitalization for six months and a full year for his recovery.

After the horse had won three races for the buyer, it was discovered that by clerical error, unknown to either party, the horse's official birth registration listed an undistinguished racehorse as the sire rather than the famous racehorse that in fact was the sire.

The horse won $5 million for the buyer over a three-year racing career but upon being retired was found to be incurably sterile and useless as a breeder.

On April 1, a mechanic contracted to repair a toy company's molding machine and to complete the job by April 6. On April 2, the toy company contracted to manufacture and deliver specified toys to a customer on April 15. The toy company knew that it would have to use the machine then under repair to perform this contract. Because the customer's order was for a weeklong toy conference, the customer and the toy company included in their contract a liquidated damages clause, providing that the toy company would pay $5,000 for each day's delay in delivery after April 15. The mechanic was inexcusably five days late in repairing the machine, and, as a result, the toy company was five days late in delivering the toys to the customer. The toy company paid $25,000 to the customer as liquidated damages and now sues the mechanic for $25,000. Both the mechanic and the toy company knew when making their contract on April 1 that, under ordinary circumstances, the toy company would sustain little or no damages of any kind as a result of a five-day delay in the machine repair. Assuming that the $5,000 liquidated damages clause in the customer's contract is valid, which of the following arguments will serve as the mechanic's best defense to the toy company's action?

The mechanic had no reason to foresee on April 1 that the toy company would suffer consequential damages in the amount of $25,000.

By entering into the contract with the customer while knowing that its molding machine was being repaired, the toy company assumed the risk of any delay loss to the customer.

In all probability, the liquidated damages paid by the toy company to the customer are not the same amount as the actual damages sustained by the customer in consequence of the late delivery of the toys.

Time was not of the essence in the contract between the mechanic and the toy company.

In a writing signed by both parties on December 1, a buyer agreed to buy from a seller a gasoline engine for $1,000, delivery to be made on the following February 1. Through a secretarial error, the writing called for delivery on March 1, but neither party noticed the error until February 1. Before signing the agreement, the parties orally agreed that the contract of sale would be effective only if the buyer should notify the seller in writing not later than January 2 that the buyer had arranged to resell the engine to a third person. Otherwise, they agreed orally, "There is no deal." On December 15, the buyer entered into a contract with a third party to resell the engine to the third party at a profit. The buyer did not give the seller notice of the resale agreement until January 25, and the seller received it by mail on January 26. In the meantime, the value of the engine had unexpectedly increased about 75% since December 1, and the seller renounced the agreement. If the buyer sues the seller on February 2 for breach of contract, which of the following is the seller's best defense?

The buyer not giving written notice by January 2 of his resale agreement was a failure of a condition precedent to the existence of a contract.

In view of the unexpected 75% increase in value of the engine after December 1, the seller's performance is excused by the doctrine of commercial frustration.

The agreement, if any, is unenforceable because a material term was not included in the writing.

The secretarial error in the written delivery-term was a mutual mistake concerning a basic fact, and the agreement is voidable by either party.

A life coach entered into a contract with an introverted woman to provide a weeklong course that served as an introduction to the life coach's yearlong program. Under the terms of the contract, the life coach would work with the woman full-time for a week to start teaching her to interact with people with more confidence. The woman would then participate in a speed-dating event as her "graduation" from the course. The contract also provided that unless the woman received an offer for a second date at the speed-dating event, she had no obligation to pay for the introductory course. If she received an offer for a second date at the speed-dating event, she would be required to pay the life coach $1,000 within three days of the event. After working with the life coach pursuant to the terms of the contract, the woman attended the speed-dating event. Four days after the event, when the woman still had not paid the life coach, the life coach brought a breach-of-contract action against the woman to recover $1,000 under the contract. Which of the following best states the burden of proof that will apply in this case?

Because the contract involved a condition precedent, the life coach must prove that the woman received an offer of a second date at the speed-dating event to recover.

Because the contract involved a condition precedent, the woman must prove that she did not receive an offer of a second date at the speed-dating event to avoid liability.

Because the contract involved a condition subsequent, the life coach must prove that the woman received an offer of a second date at the speed-dating event to recover.

Because the contract involved a condition subsequent, the woman must prove that she did not receive an offer of a second date at the speed-dating event to avoid liability.

Contracts Final Review

Authored by Jaydah Bracks

Other

Professional Development

Used 2+ times

AI Actions

Add similar questions

Adjust reading levels

Convert to real-world scenario

Translate activity

More...

Content View

Student View

30 questions

Show all answers

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

2 mins • 1 pt

A woman encountered her coworker and the coworker's friend at a local coffee shop. The woman, who knew that the coworker needed a new laptop for his personal use, had planned to offer her extra laptop to the coworker. The woman went to the counter to place her coffee order and, with her back to the table where the coworker and his friend sat, said, "By the way, I know you are looking for a new laptop. I will sell you my laptop for $100." The friend immediately replied, "I accept your offer!" Has a contract been formed between the friend and the woman?

No, because the friend was mistaken as to the terms of the contract.

No, because the friend was not the party with whom the woman intended to contract.

Yes, because the friend reasonably believed that he had the power to accept the woman's offer.

Yes, because the woman's objective intent was to contract with whoever overheard the offer.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

2 mins • 1 pt

A buyer sent a signed letter to a seller that stated: "Ship 100 boxes of nails at $3 per box, the price quoted in your circular." The seller mailed the buyer a signed form acknowledgment that agreed to the buyer's terms and stated on the reverse side: "Disputes regarding quality shall be arbitrated." The buyer did not reply to the seller's acknowledgment, and the seller shipped the nails. When the buyer received the nails, he found their quality to be unsatisfactory and sued the seller for breach of warranty. The seller has asked an attorney whether the parties' contract requires arbitration of the buyer's claim. What is the best advice the attorney can provide?

A contract was formed pursuant to conduct when the buyer received the nails, and a court would exclude the arbitration provision from the contract.

A contract was formed when the seller mailed its acknowledgment, and the arbitration term became part of the contract.

A contract was formed when the seller mailed its acknowledgment, and the court must decide whether the arbitration term should be excluded as a material alteration of the contract.

No contract exists, because the arbitration term in the seller's acknowledgment created a counteroffer that the buyer never accepted.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

2 mins • 1 pt

On July 18, a shovel manufacturer received an order for the purchase of 500 snow shovels from a wholesaler. The wholesaler had mailed the purchase order on July 15. The order required shipment of the shovels no earlier than September 15 and no later than October 15. Typed conspicuously across the front of the order form was the following: "Wholesaler reserves the right to cancel this order at any time before September 1." The manufacturer's mailed response, "We accept your order," was received by the wholesaler on July 21. As of July 22, which of the following is an accurate statement as to whether a contract was formed?

A contract was formed, but prior to September 1 it was an option contract terminable only at the will of the wholesaler.

A contract was formed, but prior to September 1 it was terminable at the will of either party.

No contract was formed, because of the wholesaler's reservation of the right to cancel.

No contract was formed, because the wholesaler's order was only a revocable offer.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

2 mins • 1 pt

On March 1, an apartment complex received from an appliance company a signed letter offering to sell 1,200 window air conditioners suitable for the apartments in the complex. The appliance company's offer stated that it would remain open until March 20, but that the apartment complex's acceptance must be received on or before that date. On March 16, the apartment complex posted a letter of acceptance. On March 17, the appliance company emailed the complex to advise that it was revoking the offer. The email was received by the apartment complex on March 17, but the complex's letter did not arrive at the appliance company's address until March 21. As of March 22, which of the following is a correct statement?

The email revoking the offer was effective upon receipt.

The mail was the only authorized means of revocation.

The offer was revocable at any time for lack of consideration.

Under the terms of the appliance company's offer, the apartment complex's attempted acceptance was ineffective.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

2 mins • 1 pt

A toy collector purchased 10 antique toys over several years and had had them restored by an expert in toy restoration. On June 1, the collector sent an 11th antique toy to the expert with a signed note that read: "Here is another toy for you to restore. As with all prior jobs, I will pay $500 for the work, but no more." On June 4, after receipt of the collector's June 1 note and the toy, the expert began restoring the toy. On June 6, the collector unexpectedly died. On June 7, unaware of the collector's death, the expert sent the collector a note that stated that the restoration work had begun on June 4. The following day, the expert learned of the collector's death. Does a contract exist that binds the expert and the collector's estate?

No, because the collector died before the expert sent the June 7 note.

No, because the offer lapsed when the collector died.

Yes, because the expert sent the June 7 note before learning of the collector's death.

Yes, because the offer was accepted before the collector's death.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

2 mins • 1 pt

A furniture merchant offered to sell an armoire to a woman for $5,000. The merchant gave the woman a signed letter promising to leave the offer open at that price for one week. Three weeks later, the woman emailed the merchant, asking if the merchant had a certificate of authenticity for the armoire. The merchant informed the woman that he had sold the armoire a week ago. Did the furniture merchant breach any enforceable obligation to keep open the offer to sell the woman the armoire for $5,000?

Yes, because firm offers must remain open for at least three months.

Yes, because the woman had not yet rejected the furniture merchant’s offer.

No, because one week had elapsed before the furniture merchant sold the armoire to someone else.

No, because the woman did not provide consideration for the furniture merchant’s promise to keep the offer open.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

2 mins • 1 pt

A bicycle manufacturer was negotiating the sale of 50 bicycles to the owner of a bicycle shop. The manufacturer sent the store owner a proposed contract containing all the terms for the sale and promising delivery the next week. The store owner agreed to all the terms of the contract but did not want delivery to occur on Monday, because his shop was closed that day. On the proposed contract form, the store owner added the phrase “except Monday” to the phrase “delivery to be made any day in the next week.” The manufacturer received the store owner’s response and made no further communications with him. Is there a contract between the manufacturer and the storeowner?

Yes, with delivery to be made any day next week.

Yes, with delivery to be made any day next week except for Monday.

Yes, but without an agreed-upon time frame for delivery.

No, because the store owner’s response was a counteroffer that rejected the original offer, not an acceptance.

Access all questions and much more by creating a free account

Create resources

Host any resource

Get auto-graded reports

Continue with Google

Continue with Email

Continue with Classlink

Continue with Clever

or continue with

Microsoft

Apple

Others

Already have an account?

Popular Resources on Wayground

7 questions

History of Valentine's Day

Interactive video

•

4th Grade

15 questions

Fractions on a Number Line

Quiz

•

3rd Grade

20 questions

Equivalent Fractions

Quiz

•

3rd Grade

25 questions

Multiplication Facts

Quiz

•

5th Grade

$fractions$

22 questions

fractions

Quiz

•

3rd Grade

15 questions

Valentine's Day Trivia

Quiz

•

3rd Grade

20 questions

Main Idea and Details

Quiz

•

5th Grade

20 questions

Context Clues

Quiz

•

6th Grade

Discover more resources for Other

44 questions

Would you rather...

Quiz

•

Professional Development

20 questions

Black History Month Trivia Game #1

Quiz

•

Professional Development

12 questions

Mardi Gras Trivia

Quiz

•

Professional Development

14 questions

Valentine's Day Trivia!

Quiz

•

Professional Development

7 questions

Copy of G5_U5_L14_22-23

Lesson

•

KG - Professional Dev...

16 questions

Parallel, Perpendicular, and Intersecting Lines

Quiz

•

KG - Professional Dev...

11 questions

NFL Football logos

Quiz

•

KG - Professional Dev...

12 questions

Valentines Day Trivia

Quiz

•

Professional Development