Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Contracts > Contracts/Torts > Flashcards

Contracts/Torts Flashcards

1
Q
  1. In Balfour v. Balfour (1919), the court held that agreements between spouses are: - A) Legally binding under all circumstances - B) Not enforceable if made in a domestic context - C) Enforceable only if in writing - D) Automatically void upon separation
A
  1. B) Not enforceable if made in a domestic context
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q
  1. In Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co. (1987), the primary issue was whether: - A) A written agreement existed - B) An oral agreement between Pennzoil and Getty was legally enforceable - C) Texaco was liable for breach of contract - D) Pennzoil had engaged in fraudulent conduct
A
  1. B) An oral agreement between Pennzoil and Getty was legally enforceable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q
  1. In Lucy v. Zehmer (1954), the court found that a contract exists if: - A) Both parties express their intent in writing - B) Both parties are aware that they are joking - C) A reasonable person would believe an agreement was intended - D) There is a verbal agreement only
A
  1. C) A reasonable person would believe an agreement was intended
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q
  1. The measure of damages in Hawkins v. McGee (1929) was based on: - A) The costs incurred by the plaintiff - B) The emotional distress suffered - C) The difference between the promised outcome and the actual result - D) The defendant’s intent to perform
A
  1. C) The difference between the promised outcome and the actual result
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q
  1. In Sylvan Crest Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States (1945), the issue was whether: - A) The U.S. government could cancel a contract at will - B) The contract lacked proper consideration - C) The government was immune from lawsuits - D) The terms of the contract were ambiguous
A
  1. A) The U.S. government could cancel a contract at will
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q
  1. In Strong v. Sheffield (1895), the court found that forbearance constitutes: - A) Adequate consideration if a specific period is mentioned - B) No consideration unless indefinite - C) Invalid consideration because of uncertainty - D) Adequate consideration regardless of time period
A
  1. B) No consideration unless indefinite
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  1. The court in Leonard v. Pepsico (1999) ruled that: - A) The advertisement constituted a valid offer - B) The plaintiff was entitled to the Harrier jet - C) The advertisement was not a serious offer - D) The Pepsi Points program was fraudulent
A
  1. C) The advertisement was not a serious offer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q
  1. In Fairmount Glass Works v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co. (1899), the court ruled that: - A) A price quote constitutes an offer if it’s clear and definite - B) Price quotes are always considered invitations to negotiate - C) Price quotes are not legally binding under any circumstances - D) Negotiations did not constitute a valid contract
A
  1. A) A price quote constitutes an offer if it’s clear and definite
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q
  1. In Gadsden Times v. Doe (1977), the issue was whether: - A) A newspaper could reveal the identity of an anonymous source - B) Defamation could be claimed anonymously - C) Freedom of speech overruled privacy rights - D) A court could compel anonymity in lawsuits
A
  1. B) Defamation could be claimed anonymously
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q
  1. In Hoffman v. Horton (1972), the court considered whether the statute of limitations: - A) Could be waived if the defendant consents - B) Could be extended if the defendant fraudulently concealed the claim - C) Was applicable to personal injury cases - D) Should apply to cases of negligence
A
  1. B) Could be extended if the defendant fraudulently concealed the claim
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q
  1. In Lonergan v. Scolnick (1954), the court held that: - A) An invitation to negotiate constitutes an offer - B) A contract was formed despite the lack of an offer - C) No contract was formed because there was no definite offer - D) Offers must be made in writing to be enforceable
A
  1. C) No contract was formed because there was no definite offer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q
  1. In Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher (1981), the issue was whether: - A) An agreement to agree is enforceable - B) A lease contract without specified terms is valid - C) Oral agreements regarding rent are binding - D) The court can impose rent terms on a contract
A
  1. A) An agreement to agree is unenforceable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q
  1. In BMC Industries, Inc. v. Barth Industries, Inc. (1998), the issue was whether: - A) An offer was made in good faith - B) A price-quotation could form a binding contract under the UCC - C) The UCC applied to this type of contract - D) A modification to the contract was valid
A
  1. B) A price-quotation could form a binding contract under the UCC
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q
  1. In Southwest Engineering Co. v. Martin Tractor Company, Inc. (1970), the legal issue concerned: - A) Breach of a construction warranty - B) The enforceability of a warranty disclaimer - C) The sale of defective goods - D) The failure to properly notify the buyer
A
  1. B) The enforceability of a warranty disclaimer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q
  1. In Copeland v. Baskin Robbins (2002), the issue was whether: - A) A preliminary agreement to negotiate was enforceable - B) A franchise agreement was valid without a signature - C) A contract was formed based on oral negotiations - D) Baskin Robbins breached a non-disclosure agreement
A
  1. A) A preliminary agreement to negotiate was enforceable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q
  1. In Oglebay Norton Co. v. Armco, Inc. (1990), the court considered whether: - A) A contract remains enforceable without a price term - B) Price terms in a contract can be implied - C) Performance under a contract can be excused due to hardship - D) A contract could be rescinded due to changes in market conditions
A
  1. A) A contract remains enforceable without a price term
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q
  1. In Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (1917), the court found that: - A) An exclusive agency contract was invalid due to lack of consideration - B) An implied promise to use best efforts was valid consideration - C) The contract was invalid due to failure of performance - D) Lady Duff-Gordon had breached her contract by signing with a competitor
A
  1. B) An implied promise to use best efforts was valid consideration
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q
  1. In Broadnax v. Ledbetter (1907), the legal issue was: - A) Whether an offer for a reward can be revoked at any time - B) Whether the performance of requested acts creates a contract - C) Whether the offer of a reward constituted a public invitation - D) Whether the offeror must fulfill a reward if the requested act is performed
A
  1. B) Whether the performance of requested acts creates a contract
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q
  1. In MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova d’Agostino (1998), the court addressed: - A) The validity of international sales contracts under the UCC - B) The interpretation of intent under the CISG - C) Whether oral agreements for sale are enforceable - D) The application of common law principles to international contracts
A
  1. B) The interpretation of intent under the CISG
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q
  1. In Balfour v. Balfour (1919), the court primarily discussed: - A) Contract formation between commercial entities - B) The concept of domestic contracts not intended to be legally binding - C) Breach of fiduciary duty between spouses - D) The enforcement of written agreements between family members
A
  1. B) The concept of domestic contracts not intended to be legally binding
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q
  1. In Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co. (1987), the court decided that: - A) A letter of intent cannot be legally binding - B) Oral agreements can be enforceable if the parties intend to be bound - C) An oral agreement is never enforceable in Texas - D) Texaco’s actions did not constitute interference with a contract
A
  1. B) Oral agreements can be enforceable if the parties intend to be bound
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q
  1. In Lucy v. Zehmer (1954), the key question was: - A) Whether a contract signed under duress is enforceable - B) Whether joking about a contract negates the parties’ intent - C) Whether mental assent is necessary for contract formation - D) Whether both parties need to be in complete agreement
A
  1. B) Whether joking about a contract negates the parties’ intent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q
  1. The court in Hawkins v. McGee (1929) dealt with which of the following issues? - A) Emotional distress as damages - B) Contractual promises and expectation damages - C) Failure of consideration in medical contracts - D) Specific performance in contracts
A
  1. B) Contractual promises and expectation damages
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q
  1. In Fairmount Glass Works v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co. (1899), the court examined whether: - A) A letter discussing prices was an offer or an invitation to negotiate - B) The terms of sale had been properly communicated - C) The contract had been properly modified - D) A buyer’s offer had been validly rejected
A
  1. A) A letter discussing prices was an offer or an invitation to negotiate
25
Q
  1. In Strong v. Sheffield (1895), the court ruled that: - A) Indefinite promises to forbear are not valid consideration - B) A promise to pay later is always enforceable
A
  1. A) Indefinite promises to forbear are not valid consideration
26
Q
  1. In Copeland v. Baskin Robbins (2002), the court determined that: - A) An agreement to negotiate in good faith could be enforceable - B) No contract existed due to lack of mutual assent - C) The parties had entered into a valid contract for a franchise - D) Baskin Robbins did not owe any duties to the plaintiff
A
  1. A) An agreement to negotiate in good faith could be enforceable
27
Q
  1. In Gadsden Times v. Doe (1977), the court focused on whether: - A) The plaintiff’s right to privacy outweighed the public’s right to know - B) Anonymous defamation claims could proceed in court - C) Freedom of the press protected newspapers from defamation lawsuits - D) The plaintiff had adequately shown damages from the alleged defamation
A
  1. B) Anonymous defamation claims could proceed in court
28
Q
  1. In Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (1917), the court determined that: - A) A promise to use best efforts can be implied into an exclusive agency contract - B) Lady Duff-Gordon had breached the contract by entering a competing agreement - C) Contracts for agency agreements are not enforceable - D) The contract was void due to lack of written terms
A
  1. A) A promise to use best efforts can be implied into an exclusive agency contract
29
Q
  1. In Lonergan v. Scolnick (1954), the court held that: - A) The correspondence between the parties constituted an enforceable contract - B) An offer requires a definite expression of intent to be bound - C) A contract was formed despite the ambiguous language used - D) Lonergan’s acceptance was valid regardless of the terms
A
  1. B) An offer requires a definite expression of intent to be bound
30
Q
  1. How many main types of torts are there? - A) Two - B) Three - C) Four - D) Five
A
  1. B) Three
31
Q
  1. Which of the following is NOT a main type of tort? - A) Intentional Torts - B) Negligence - C) Strict Liability - D) Breach of Contract
A
  1. D) Breach of Contract
32
Q
  1. Which of the following is an example of an intentional tort? - A) Battery - B) Slip and fall - C) Medical malpractice - D) Dangerous products
A
  1. A) Battery
33
Q
  1. The elements of battery include: - A) Duty, breach, causation, and harm - B) Harmful or offensive contact and intent to cause that contact - C) Intent, damages, duty - D) None of the above
A
  1. B) Harmful or offensive contact and intent to cause that contact
34
Q
  1. What is an important element in intentional torts like battery? - A) Negligence - B) Duty of care - C) Intent - D) Reasonableness
A
  1. C) Intent
35
Q
  1. What does “intent” generally mean in intentional tort cases? - A) The defendant must intend to cause harm - B) The defendant desires the result or knows to a substantial certainty it will occur - C) The defendant must foresee the harm - D) The defendant is liable regardless of intent
A
  1. B) The defendant desires the result or knows to a substantial certainty it will occur
36
Q
  1. Which of the following is NOT an example of an intentional tort? - A) Assault - B) False Imprisonment - C) Negligence - D) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
A
  1. C) Negligence
37
Q
  1. In negligence claims, which of the following is NOT an element? - A) Duty - B) Breach - C) Intent - D) Causation
A
  1. C) Intent
38
Q
  1. What is the standard of care in negligence cases based on? - A) The defendant’s intent - B) Whether the defendant used due care and acted reasonably - C) Strict liability - D) Emotional distress
A
  1. B) Whether the defendant used due care and acted reasonably
39
Q
  1. Foreseeability in negligence cases means: - A) The defendant could foresee all possible harms - B) The defendant is only liable for harms that are reasonably foreseeable - C) The defendant knew with certainty that harm would occur - D) Foreseeability does not limit liability
A
  1. B) The defendant is only liable for harms that are reasonably foreseeable
40
Q
  1. Which of the following is an example of negligence? - A) A car accident caused by a driver texting - B) Using dynamite in a crowded area - C) A false imprisonment case - D) An assault and battery case
A
  1. A) A car accident caused by a driver texting
41
Q
  1. In a slip and fall case, if the store did not take reasonable steps to prevent a customer from slipping, it is an example of: - A) Strict liability - B) Breach of contract - C) Negligence - D) Intentional tort
A
  1. C) Negligence
42
Q
  1. What would be the defense for a store if a customer slipped on ice right after another customer spilled a drink? - A) Negligence - B) The harm was not foreseeable - C) Intentional tort - D) Strict liability
A
  1. B) The harm was not foreseeable
43
Q
  1. Strict liability means the defendant is liable: - A) Only if they intended to cause harm - B) Regardless of intent or due care - C) Only if they breached a duty of care - D) Only if they were negligent
A
  1. B) Regardless of intent or due care
44
Q
  1. Which of the following is an example of strict liability? - A) A car accident - B) Injury from a dangerous product - C) Defamation - D) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
A
  1. B) Injury from a dangerous product
45
Q
  1. Which of the following activities would most likely result in strict liability? - A) Driving a car - B) Using dynamite near a populated area - C) Selling faulty goods - D) A slip and fall on ice
A
  1. B) Using dynamite near a populated area
46
Q
  1. What does strict liability NOT depend on? - A) Intent to harm - B) Foreseeability - C) The defendant’s use of due care - D) All of the above
A
  1. D) All of the above
47
Q
  1. Which of the following is NOT a common example of negligence? - A) Medical malpractice - B) Car accidents - C) False imprisonment - D) Slip and fall cases
A
  1. C) False imprisonment
48
Q
  1. The key difference between negligence and intentional torts is: - A) Negligence requires intent - B) Intentional torts require duty and breach - C) Negligence does not require intent, while intentional torts do - D) Both require intent
A
  1. C) Negligence does not require intent, while intentional torts do
49
Q
  1. In negligence, which standard is often used to measure whether a person exercised due care? - A) The foreseeability standard - B) The strict liability standard - C) The reasonableness standard - D) The intent standard
A
  1. C) The reasonableness standard
50
Q
  1. Which tort focuses on whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff? - A) Intentional tort - B) Negligence - C) Strict liability - D) Breach of contract
A
  1. B) Negligence
51
Q
  1. Which tort makes the defendant liable regardless of whether they were careful? - A) Negligence - B) Breach of contract - C) Strict liability - D) Defamation
A
  1. C) Strict liability
52
Q
  1. Battery requires: - A) A breach of contract - B) Harmful or offensive contact with intent - C) The defendant to foresee the harm - D) Carelessness in action
A
  1. B) Harmful or offensive contact with intent
53
Q
  1. The elements of negligence include all of the following EXCEPT: - A) Duty - B) Breach - C) Causation - D) Intent
A
  1. D) Intent
54
Q
  1. When is a store most likely liable for a slip and fall accident? - A) When the accident occurred due to weather - B) When the store did not take reasonable steps to clear hazards - C) When the customer was not paying attention - D) When another customer caused the spill
A
  1. B) When the store did not take reasonable steps to clear hazards
55
Q
  1. Which tort is concerned with the standard of due care? - A) Intentional torts - B) Negligence - C) Strict liability - D) Assault
A
  1. B) Negligence
56
Q
  1. What type of tort is medical malpractice typically categorized under? - A) Intentional tort - B) Strict liability - C) Negligence - D) Defamation
A
  1. C) Negligence
57
Q
  1. In which case would strict liability most likely apply? - A) A dog bite from a dangerous breed - B) A minor car accident - C) An unintentional defamation - D) Failure to pay a debt
A
  1. A) A dog bite from a dangerous breed
58
Q
  1. Which concept limits the liability in negligence claims? - A) Strict liability - B) Reasonableness - C) Intent - D) Foreseeability
A
  1. D) Foreseeability
59
Q
  1. The primary difference between negligence and strict liability is: - A) Negligence requires proof of intent - B) Strict liability does not depend on intent or carelessness - C) Negligence is always intentional - D) Strict liability only applies to contract breaches
A
  1. B) Strict liability does not depend on intent or carelessness

Contracts (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions