MBE Review Flashcards
T
EXPERT’S OPINIONS MAY BE BASED ON FACTS
- LEARNED BEFORE THE TRIAL
- LEARNED AT THE TRIAL
3
FACTORS FOR EVALUATING THE PREDOMINATE PURPOSE RULE ARE
- LANGUAGE OF CONTRACT
- NATURE OF SUPPLIER’S BUSINESS
- RELATIVE VALUE OF GOODS VS. SERVICES
1
QUANTUM MERUIT IS THIS TYPE OF CONTRACT
- IMPLIED-IN-FACT
4
MEANS OF REVOKING OFFER
- LAPSE
- DEATH BY OFFEROR
- REVOCATION BY OFFEROR
- REJECTION BY OFFEREE
2
INDIRECT REVOCATION OCCURS WHEN
- OFFEROR ACTS IN AN WAY INCONSITENT WITH INTENTION TO MAINTAIN OFFER
- OFFEREE LEARNS ABOVE ACTION FROM RELIABLE SOURCE
2
OPTION CONTRACT
- OFFEREE AGREES TO KEEP OFFER OPEN FOR AGREED UPON PERIOD OF TIME
- IN EXCHANGE FOR CONSIDERATION FROM OFFEREE
T
MAJORITY RULE - WHERE CONTRACTOR USES SUB-CONTRACTOR’S BIDS TO MAKE HIS OWN BID, WHAT MAY CONTRACTOR USE TO ENFORCE SUB-CONTRACTOR’S BIDS?
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
3
ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT OFFER BY SILENCE CAN OCCUR WHERE
- IMPLIED IN FACT
- PRIOR DEALINGS CREATE REASON FOR OFFERREE TO NOTIFY OFERROR HE DOES NOT INTENT TO ACCEPT
- OFFEREE GIVES OFFEROR CLEAR REASON TO EXPECT SILENCE WILL CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE
6
UCC TERMS MATERIALLY ALTERING CONTRACT
- WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS
- CHANGE TO PRICE, QUALITY, QUANTITY
- DISPUTE RESOLUTION
- CLAUSES CHANGING INDUSTRY STANDARDS
- CLAUSES CHANGING STANDARDS OF PRIOR DEALINGS
- ATTORNEY’S FEES PROVISIONS
4
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PREEXISTING DUTY RULE
- CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
- RATIFY VOIDABLE OBLIGATION
- HONESTY DISPUTE OF DUTY
- DUTY IS TO THIRD PARTY
1
UNDER THE UCC, CONDITIONED ACCEPTANCE IS NOT
- ACCEPTANCE
T
IMPLIED IN FACT CONTRACTS ARE TYPICALLY CREATED BY
CONDUCT
2
PERFECT TENDER RULE - A SHIPMENT OF NON-CONFORMING GOODS WILL ALLOW SELLER TO
- ACCEPT NON-CONFORMING GOODS
- REJECT NON-CONFORMING GOODS
- CEASE PERFORMANCE
1
REMEDY OF NON-BREACHING LOST VOLUME SELLER
- DEMAND THE EXPECTED PROFIT OF THE CONTRACT
5
UCC 2-706 - NON-BREACHING SELLER’S REMEDY IN RECEIPT REJECTED BUT CONFORMING GOODS
- SELL THE GOODS AT A PRIVATE OR PUBLIC SALVAGE SALE
- AFTER NOTICE TO BREACHING BUYER
- DEMAND EXCESS OF CONTRACT PRICE OVER SALVAGE SALE PRICE
- PLUS INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
- MINUS EXPENSES SAVED FROM BREACH
1
UCC 2-508 BREACHING SELLER’S RIGHT TO CURE - BREACHING SELLER HAS RIGHT ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CURE WITHIN CONTRACT PERIOD IF
- NOTICE IS GIVEN OF INTENT TO CURE
2
UCC 2-508 - BREACHING SELLER WHO HAS SHIPPED NON-CONFORMING GOODS HAS EXTRA REASONABLE PERIOD TO CURE WHERE
- NOTICE IS GIVEN OF INTENT TO CURE
- NON-CONFORMING GOODS ARE SHIPPED WITH REASONABLE BELIEF OF THEIR CONFORMITY
3
UCC 2-104 - MERCHANT
- A PERSON DEALING WITH GOODS OF THE KIND
- OR HAS KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL PECULIAR TO THE PRACTICES OR GOODS INVOLVED IN THE CONTRACT
- OR EMPLOYS ONE WITH SUCH KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL
2
UCC STATUTE OF FRAUDS - IF BOTH PARTIES ARE MERCHANTS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT MAY BE SATISFIED BY
- SALES CONFIRMATION LISTING QUANTITY
- NOT OBJECTED TO WITHIN 10 DAYS
2
UCC 2-704 NON-BREACHING SELLER’S RIGHT TO COMPLETE GOODS INTENDED FOR BREACHING BUYER
- SELLER MAY FINISH GOODS IF REASONABLY BELIEVES CAN SELL TO ANOTHER BUYER
- OR SCRAP EFFORTS AND CEASE PRODUCTION
1
UCC 2-704 NONBREACHING BUYER’S CHOICE TO CONTINUE PRODUCTION FOR BREACHED CONTRACT IS BASED ON
- REASONABLE BUSINESS PERSON STANDARD
3
UCC - TO PROVE HE IS LOST VOLUME SELLER, SELLER MUST SHOW
- HE MAKES HIGH VOLUME OF SIMILAR GOODS
- HE HAS MULTIPLE BUYERS
- VOLUME SALES BREAK EVEN OR MAKE A PROFIT
1
WHERE SELLER MAKES MORE MONEY IN RESALE OF WRONGFULLY REJECTED CONFORMING GOODS, PROFIT BELONGS TO
- SELLER
2
UCC SELLER’S ACTION ON THE PRICE REMEDY IF BUYER FAILS TO PAY FOR GOODS WHEN PAYMENT BECOMES DUE
- SELLER MAY RECOVER CONTRACT PRICE FOR GOODS
- PLUS INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
3
UCC ACTION ON THE PRICE TRIGGERS
- BUYER HAS GOODS AND WONT PAY
- OR SELLER MAKES REASONABLE EFFORT TO RESELL GOODS AND CAN’T
- OR RESALE OF GOODS WOULD BE FUTILE
3
TO ADMIT A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE UNDER THE FRE, THE OFFERING PARTY MUST SHOW
- THE PRIOR STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH WITNESS’S PRESENT TESTIMONY
- THE PRIOR STATEMENT WAS GIVEN UNDER OATH
- THE WITNESS HAS BEEN X-EXAMINED ABOUT THE PRIOR STATEMENT IN THE CURRENT TRIAL
1
TO ADMIT A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE, THE OFFERING PARTY MUST
- X-EXAM THE IMPEACHED WITNESS IN THE CURRENT PROCEEDING ABOUT THE STATEMENT
2
CEC ALLOWS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BE ADMITTED AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE WHERE THE PRIOR STATEMENTS WERE MADE
- NOT UNDER OATH
- UNDER OATH
1
EXCEPTION TO PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT STATUS AS NON-HEARSAY UNDER FRE - USE OF PCS STATEMENT WILL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE WHERE IT WAS
- IDENTIFICATION BY WITNESS IN A LINEUP
1
THE SCOPE OF X-EXAM FOR A HOSTILE OR NON-HOSTILE WITNESS IS LIMITED TO
- THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAM
2
RANDOM AUTOMOBILE STOPS ARE OK IF
- STOP IS BASED ON NEUTRAL STANDARD
- STOPS ARE RELATED TO VEHICLE SAFETY
2
IMPEACHMENT OF A WITNESS WITH UNRELATED, COLLATERAL MATTERS
- IS NOT PERMITTED
- NO RELEVANCY
1
A FEE SIMPLE DEFEASIBLE MAY TAKE THESE THINGS FROM THE LAND
- RESOURCES
2
SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE - COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE APPLIES TO COMMUNICATIONS MADE
- DURING MARRIAGE
- BY EITHER SPOUSE
2
SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE - TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE MAY BE ASSERTED IN
- CIVIL CASES
- CRIMINAL CASES
1
SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE - TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE IS HELD BY
- THE WITNESS SPOUSE
3
SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE - FRE - TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE - COURT CANNOT COMPEL A WITNESS
- TO TESTIFY AGAINST HER SPOUSE
- IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
- OR CIVIL PROCEEDING UNDER CEC