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

1. B) Not enforceable if made in a domestic context

2. 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

2. B) An oral agreement between Pennzoil and Getty was legally enforceable

3. 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

3. C) A reasonable person would believe an agreement was intended

4. 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

4. C) The difference between the promised outcome and the actual result

6. 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

6. A) The U.S. government could cancel a contract at will

7. 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

7. B) No consideration unless indefinite

8. 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

8. C) The advertisement was not a serious offer

9. 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

9. A) A price quote constitutes an offer if it’s clear and definite

10. 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

10. B) Defamation could be claimed anonymously

11. 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

11. B) Could be extended if the defendant fraudulently concealed the claim

12. 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

12. C) No contract was formed because there was no definite offer

13. 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

13. A) An agreement to agree is unenforceable

14. 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

14. B) A price-quotation could form a binding contract under the UCC

15. 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

15. B) The enforceability of a warranty disclaimer

16. 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

16. A) A preliminary agreement to negotiate was enforceable

17. 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

17. A) A contract remains enforceable without a price term

18. 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

18. B) An implied promise to use best efforts was valid consideration

19. 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

19. B) Whether the performance of requested acts creates a contract

20. 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

20. B) The interpretation of intent under the CISG

21. 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

21. B) The concept of domestic contracts not intended to be legally binding

22. 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

22. B) Oral agreements can be enforceable if the parties intend to be bound

23. 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

23. B) Whether joking about a contract negates the parties' intent

24. 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

24. B) Contractual promises and expectation damages

25. 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

25. A) A letter discussing prices was an offer or an invitation to negotiate

Contracts/Torts Flashcards by Espiridion Mendez

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

B) Not enforceable if made in a domestic context

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) An oral agreement between Pennzoil and Getty was legally enforceable

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

C) A reasonable person would believe an agreement was intended

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

C) The difference between the promised outcome and the actual result

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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) The U.S. government could cancel a contract at will

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) No consideration unless indefinite

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

C) The advertisement was not a serious offer

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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) A price quote constitutes an offer if it’s clear and definite

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) Defamation could be claimed anonymously

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) Could be extended if the defendant fraudulently concealed the claim

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

C) No contract was formed because there was no definite offer

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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) An agreement to agree is unenforceable

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) A price-quotation could form a binding contract under the UCC

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) The enforceability of a warranty disclaimer

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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) A preliminary agreement to negotiate was enforceable

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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) A contract remains enforceable without a price term

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) An implied promise to use best efforts was valid consideration

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) Whether the performance of requested acts creates a contract

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) The interpretation of intent under the CISG

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) The concept of domestic contracts not intended to be legally binding

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) Oral agreements can be enforceable if the parties intend to be bound

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) Whether joking about a contract negates the parties’ intent

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

B) Contractual promises and expectation damages

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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) A letter discussing prices was an offer or an invitation to negotiate

26. **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

26. **A) Indefinite promises to forbear are not valid consideration**

27. **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

27. **A) An agreement to negotiate in good faith could be enforceable**

28. **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

28. **B) Anonymous defamation claims could proceed in court**

29. **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

29. **A) A promise to use best efforts can be implied into an exclusive agency contract**

30. **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

30. **B) An offer requires a definite expression of intent to be bound**

1. **How many main types of torts are there?** - A) Two - B) Three - C) Four - D) Five

1. **B) Three**

2. **Which of the following is NOT a main type of tort?** - A) Intentional Torts - B) Negligence - C) Strict Liability - D) Breach of Contract

2. **D) Breach of Contract**

3. **Which of the following is an example of an intentional tort?** - A) Battery - B) Slip and fall - C) Medical malpractice - D) Dangerous products

3. **A) Battery**

4. **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

4. **B) Harmful or offensive contact and intent to cause that contact**

5. **What is an important element in intentional torts like battery?** - A) Negligence - B) Duty of care - C) Intent - D) Reasonableness

5. **C) Intent**

6. **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

6. **B) The defendant desires the result or knows to a substantial certainty it will occur**

7. **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

7. **C) Negligence**

8. **In negligence claims, which of the following is NOT an element?** - A) Duty - B) Breach - C) Intent - D) Causation

8. **C) Intent**

9. **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

9. **B) Whether the defendant used due care and acted reasonably**

10. **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

10. **B) The defendant is only liable for harms that are reasonably foreseeable**

11. **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

11. **A) A car accident caused by a driver texting**

12. **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

12. **C) Negligence**

13. **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

13. **B) The harm was not foreseeable**

14. **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

14. **B) Regardless of intent or due care**

15. **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

15. **B) Injury from a dangerous product**

16. **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

16. **B) Using dynamite near a populated area**

17. **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

17. **D) All of the above**

18. **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

18. **C) False imprisonment**

19. **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

19. **C) Negligence does not require intent, while intentional torts do**

20. **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

20. **C) The reasonableness standard**

21. **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

21. **B) Negligence**

22. **Which tort makes the defendant liable regardless of whether they were careful?** - A) Negligence - B) Breach of contract - C) Strict liability - D) Defamation

22. **C) Strict liability**

23. **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

23. **B) Harmful or offensive contact with intent**

24. **The elements of negligence include all of the following EXCEPT:** - A) Duty - B) Breach - C) Causation - D) Intent

24. **D) Intent**

25. **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

25. **B) When the store did not take reasonable steps to clear hazards**

26. **Which tort is concerned with the standard of due care?** - A) Intentional torts - B) Negligence - C) Strict liability - D) Assault

26. **B) Negligence**

27. **What type of tort is medical malpractice typically categorized under?** - A) Intentional tort - B) Strict liability - C) Negligence - D) Defamation

27. **C) Negligence**

28. **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

28. **A) A dog bite from a dangerous breed**

29. **Which concept limits the liability in negligence claims?** - A) Strict liability - B) Reasonableness - C) Intent - D) Foreseeability

29. **D) Foreseeability**

30. **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

30. **B) Strict liability does not depend on intent or carelessness**