Contracts Exam II Flashcards
Alexus, knowing that Kaitlyn is going to college, promises Kaitlyn that Alexus will give her 5,000 on completion of her course. Kaitlyn goes to college and borrows and spends more than 5,000 for college expenses. When she has nearly completed her courses, Alexus notifies her of an intention to revoke the promise.
Alexus’s promise is binding, and Kaitlyn is entitled to payment on completion of the course without regard to whether his performance was “bargained for” under 71.
Alexus promises Kaitlyn not to foreclose, for a specified time, a mortgage which Alexus holds on Kaitlyn’s land. Kaitlyn thereafter makes improvements on the land.
Alexus’s promise is binding and may be enforced by denial of foreclosure before the time has elapsed.
Alexus sues Kaitlyn in a municipal court for damages for personal injuries caused by Kaitlyn’s negligence. After the one-year statute of limitations has run, Kaitlyn requests Alexus to discontinue the action and start again in the superior court where the action be consolidated with the other actions against Kaitlyn arising out of the same accident. Alexus does so.
Kaitlyn’s implied promise that no harm to Alexus will result bars Kaitlyn from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense.
Alexus has been employed by Kaitlyn for 40 years. Kaitlyn promises to pay Alexus a pension of 200 per month when Alexus retires. Alexus retires and forbears to work elsewhere for several years while Kaitlyn pays the pension
Kaitlyn’s promise is binding
Alexus holds a mortgage on Kaitlyn’s land. To enable Kaitlyn to obtain a loan, Alexus promises Kaitlyn in writing to release part of the land from the mortgage upon payment of a stated sum. As Alexus contemplated, Anna lends money to Kaitlyn on a second mortgage, relying on Alexus’s promise.
The promise is binding and may be enforced by Anna.
Alexus executes and delivers a promissory note to Kaitlyn, a bank, to give Kaitlyn a false appearance of assets, deceive the banking authorities, and enable to continue to operate. After several years Kaitlyn fails and is taken over by Anna, a representative of Kaitlyn’s creditor
Alexus’s note is enforceable by Anna.
Alexus and Kaitlyn, wife and wife, are tenants by the entirely of a tract of land. They make an oral promise to Kaitlyn’s niece Anna to give her the tract. Kaitlyn, Anna and Anna’s husband expend money in building a house on the tract and Anna and her husband take possession and live there for several years until Kaitlyn dies
The expenditures by Kaitlyn and Anna’s husband are treated like those by Anna in determining whether justice requires enforcement of the promise against Alexus
Alexus applies to Kaitlyn, a distributor of radios manufactured by Anna, for a dealer franchise to see Anna’s products. Such franchises are revocable at will. Kaitlyn erroneously informs Alexus that Anna has accepted the application and will soon award the franchises, that Alexus can proceed to employ salesmen and solicit orders, and that Alexus receive an initial delivery of at least 30 radios. Alexus expends 1,150 in preparing to do business but does not receive the franchise or any radios.
Kaitlyn is liable to Alexus for the 1,150 but not for the lost profit on 30 radios.
The facts being otherwise as stated above, Kaitlyn gives Alexus the erroneous information deliberately and with Anna’s approval and requires Alexus to buy the assets of a deceased former dealer and thus discharged Anna’s moral obligation to the widow.
Anna is liable to Alexus not only Alexus’s expenses by also for the lost profit on 30 radios.
Alexus, who owns and operates a bakery, desires to go into the grocery business. She approaches Kaitlyn, a franchisor of supermarkets. Kaitlyn states to Alexus that for 18,000 Kaitlyn will establish Alexus in a store. Kaitlyn also advices Alexus to move to another town and buy a small grocery to gain experience. Alexus does so. Later Kaitlyn advises Alexus to sell the grocery, which Alexus does, taking a capital loss and foregoing expected profits from the summer tourist trade. Kaitlyn also advises Alexus to sell her bakery to raise capital for the supermarket franchise, saying “Everything is ready to go. Get your money together and we are set.” Alexus sells the bakery taking a capital loss on the sale as well. Still later, Kaitlyn tells Alexus considerably more than 18,000 investments will be needed, and the negotiations between the party’s collapse. At the point of collapse many details of the proposed agreement between the parties are unresolved.
The assurance from Kaitlyn to Alexus are promises on which Kaitlyn reasonably should have expected Alexus to rely, and Alexus is entitled to his actual losses on the sales of the bakery and grocery and for his moving and temporary living expenses. Since the proposed agreement was never made, however, Alexus is not entitled to lost profits from the sale of the grocery store or to her expectation interest in the proposed franchise from Kaitlyn.
Alexus is about to buy a house on a hill. Before buying she obtains a promise from Kaitlyn, who owns adjoining land, that Kaitlyn will not build on a particular portion of her lot, where a building would obstruct the view from the house. Alexus then buys the house in reliance on the promise.
Kaitlyn’s promise is binding but will be specifically enforced only so long as Alexus and his successor do not permanently terminate the use of the view.
Alexus promises to make a gift of tract of land to Kaitlyn, her son-in-law. Kaitlyn takes possession and lives on the land for 17 years, making valuable improvements. Alexus then dispossess Kaitlyn, and specific performance is denied because proof of the terms of the promise is not sufficiently clear and definite
Kaitlyn is entitled to a lien on the land for the value of the improvements, not exceeding.
Alexus, a bank, lends money to Kaitlyn on the security of a mortgage on Kaitlyn’s new home. The mortgage requires Kaitlyn to insure the property. At the closing of the transaction Alexus promises to arrange for the required insurance, and in reliance on the promise Kaitlyn fails to insure. Six months later the property, still uninsured, is destroyed by fire.
The promise is binding.
Alexus sells an airplane to Kaitlyn, retaining title to secure payment of the price. After closing Alexus promises to keep the airplane covered by insurance until Kaitlyn can obtain insurance. Kaitlyn could obtain insurance on three days but makes no effort to do so, and the airplane is destroyed after six days.
Alexus is not subject to liability by virtue of the promise.
Alexus promises Kaitlyn 50000, knowing that Kaitlyn desires that sum for the purchases of a parcel of land. Induced thereby, Kaitlyn secures without any payment an option to buy the parcel. Alexus then tells Kaitlyn that he withdraws his promise.
Alexus’s promise is not binding.
Alexus orally promises to give her daughter Kaitlyn a tract of land to live on. As Alexus intended, Kaitlyn gives up a homestead elsewhere, takes possession of the land, lives there for a year and makes substantial improvements.
Alexus’s promise is binding
Alexus orally promises to pay Kaitlyn, a univerisyt 100000 in five annual installments for the purpose of its fund-raising campaign then in progress. The promise is confirmed in writing by Alexus’s agent, and two annual installments are paid before Alexus dies.
The continuance of the fund-raising campaign by Kaitlyn is sufficient reliance to make the promise binding to the estate.
Alexus and Kaitlyn are engaged to be married. In anticipation of the marriage Alexus and her mother Anna enter into a formal written agreement by when Anna promises to leave a certain property to Alexus by will.
Alexus’s subsequent marriage to Kaitlyn is sufficient reliance to make the promise binding on Anna’s and her estate
Alexus owes Kaitlyn 100 and the claim is not yet barred by the SOL. Alexus promises Kaitlyn in a signed writing to pay the debt.
The promise is binding, and the SOL will not bar the claim for the statutory period after the making of the new promise.
Alexus owes Kaitlyn three debts of 500 each. All of the debts are barred by SOL. Alexus writes to Kaitlyn, “I promise to pay you one of those 500 debts which I owe; the other two I shall not pay.”
Alexus’s promise of 500 is binding.
Alexus owes Kaitlyn a debt for some work which Kaitlyn has done but the amount due is in dispute. Alexus writes to Kaitlyn, “I will pay you whatever I owe.”
The promise is binding during the SOL from the time when it was made, and subjects Alexus to a duty to pay whatever amount Kaitlyn can prove was due.
Alexus wrongfully purports to sells Kaitlyn’s horse to Anna, who pays Alexus 100 and takes possession of the house. Alexus later promises Kaitlyn in a signed writing to pay Kaitlyn either 100 or the value of the horse, or Anna signs a written promise to pay Kaitlyn the value of the horse
The promise is binding as a promise to pay a quasi-contractual indebtedness.
Alexus is indebted to Kaitlyn on a judgement, which is barred by a twelve-year statute of limitations, and makes a written promise to Kaitlyn to pay the debt. Does it revive the judgement/what is the new promise.
The subsequent promise does not revive the judgement, by may be the basis of an action.
Alexus ows Kaitlyn a debt of 500, and writes to Kaitlyn, “I will pay you 400 in full satisfaction if you will so accept it.” Kaitlyn does not reply,
Alexus’s promise is not binding, whether made before or after the debt of 500 was barred by the SOL, because Kaitlyn has not complied with the condition requiring acceptance.
