Multiple Choice Flashcards
Victoria ran a private charter high school. She contracted with Nerdy Computers to replace all of the computer systems at the school. For a total price of $100,000, Nerdy agreed to sell the high school computers, printers, and monitors (collectively “equipment”), agreed to install a Wi-Fi network, and agreed to maintain the systems and the network for five years. The written contract between the parties required Nerdy Computers to deliver the equipment and set up the network by August 1. It set up the network by August 1 but failed to deliver the equipment until September 1. The school sued Nerdy Computers for breach of contract. What damage rules should the court apply?
U.C.C. Article 2 damage rules if the jurisdiction uses the predominant purpose test.
On her drive to work, Serena noticed a woman standing on a street corner holding a sign asking for money to buy food. Serena stopped the car, rolled down the window, and told the woman that Serena would give the woman $500 for food if the woman bought Serena a newspaper from the newsstand on the same street corner and brought it to a coffee shop one block away. Serena also said: “If you don’t want to do that, you can at least keep some change I am going to give you now.” The woman didn’t say anything but held out her hand. Serena handed the woman enough change to buy the newspaper and drove to the coffee shop. Shortly thereafter, the woman came to the coffee shop and gave Serena a newspaper that the woman had purchased from the newspaper stand with the change that Serena had given her. Serena gave the woman $50 and told the woman that Serena would not give her any more money. Is Serena’s promise to give the woman $500 enforceable?
The promise is enforceable because Serena sought the woman’s actions in exchange for the promise and the woman undertook those actions in exchange for the promise.
Sally and Lucy were domestic partners. Robert had been friends to both for many years. Lucy died at age fifty. Lucy’s will gave Sally a vacation home that Lucy owned, gave Robert $50,000, and gave the balance of Lucy’s estate to charity. A year after Lucy’s death, Robert visited Sally. Sally told Robert that she had just agreed to sell the vacation home for $1 million and would receive that money soon. She told Robert: “I am going to give you half of the proceeds of the sale because of your kindness to Lucy while she was alive.” Much later during their visit, Sally told Robert that she had recently been laid off by her prior employer and asked Robert if he would recommend Sally for a job interview at Robert’s place of employment. He promised her that he would do so. Robert recommended Sally for a job interview. Robert’s employer thereafter interviewed Sally for a job but didn’t hire her. Because she was having a difficult time securing employment, she kept all of the proceeds from the sale of the vacation home for herself and so informed Robert. This angered Robert, who sued her for breach of contract. Who should prevail in the lawsuit and why?
Sally, because her promise to share proceeds of the sale of the vacation home with Robert was supported only by past consideration.
Sally and Lucy were domestic partners. Robert had been friends to both for many years. Lucy died at age fifty. Lucy’s will gave Sally a vacation home that Lucy owned and gave Robert $100,000. Shortly after Lucy’s death, Robert visited Sally. Sally told Robert that she had put the vacation home on the market and listed the home for sale for $1 million. She told Robert: I’ve gotten a couple of offers for $950,000, but I won’t sell the home for less than $1 million. My broker says the market is a little soft right now, but she still thinks it possible that someone might offer $1 million or more. If I do sell it, I will give you $250,000 of the proceeds of the sale. Lucy really should have left you more than $100,000 in her will. The next day, Robert formed a contract to buy a home for $350,000, using the $100,000 that Lucy had left him in her will as a down payment and paying the balance with a $250,000 loan he obtained from a mortgage lender. He bought the home because he expected to repay the loan as soon as he received the $250,000 that Sally talked about giving him. (To repay the loan, he would also have to pay the lender a prepayment penalty and some interest, but he had some other money to do that). Soon thereafter, Lucy sold the vacation home for $1 million but she gave Robert only $100,000 of the proceeds of the sale. This angered Robert, who sued her for breach of contract. Who should prevail in the lawsuit and why?
Sally, because Sally’s promise was not supported by consideration and because it was not reasonable for Robert to rely on Sally’s promise in taking out the loan with an expectation that he would repay it with the money Sally promised to give him.
A retail sporting goods store sent an e-mail to a manufacturer of sporting equipment asking about prices for soccer balls. The manufacturer replied with an e-mail providing a link to a page on the manufacturer’s website. The page identified different types of soccer balls and listed the per unit price for each. Next to each type of soccer ball, the page provided a place in which the user could enter the quantity desired. One of the soccer balls was a commemorative ball signed by members of the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team. Next to its description was a note stating: “First 20 customers only, limit 100 per customer.” The retailer consulted the webpage, entered 100 as the quantity for the commemorative ball, clicked a button at the bottom of the page stating “Continue to purchase,” and then clicked a button entitled “Submit Order” after having provided an address for delivery, an e-mail address, and credit card payment information. A few minutes after receiving this order, the manufacturer removed the description of the commemorative ball from its website because the retailer’s order was the 20th order it had received for that product.The retailer immediately began advertising that it would soon offer the commemorative soccer balls for sale to the public. Two days after having received the retailer’s order, the manufacturer e-mailed the retailer stating: “We have discontinued manufacture and sale of commemorative soccer balls because members of Women’s National Team are not standing during National Anthem. Cannot fill your order.” Had the retailer and the manufacturer formed a contract?
Yes, because the retailer accepted the manufacturer’s offer before the manufacturer revoked the offer.
A lawyer who had established a solo practice was struggling to make a living and was debating whether to renew the lease for her office or whether to close her office and look for other work instead. LawFind, Inc., a firm offering electronic legal research, mailed a letter to the lawyer offering the lawyer a specific computer and printer free of charge if the lawyer agreed to subscribe to and pay for its electronic legal research service for six months. Because the lawyer’s existing computer and printer were quite old and worked poorly, the lawyer found the offer attractive, and it convinced her to give her practice another six months to develop and generate a decent income. The lawyer therefore immediately renewed her office lease for six months and sent her landlord the rent due for the next month. At 3:00 p.m. the following day, a mail carrier delivered mail to the lawyer’s office. At 4:00 p.m. the same day, the lawyer deposited in a mailbox outside her office a letter addressed to Law Find, Inc. agreeing to its proposal. At 5:00 p.m. the same day, the lawyer opened the mail delivered that day, which included a letter from Law Find, Inc. stating that its offer of a free computer and printer was withdrawn. Law Find, Inc. thereafter refused to supply the lawyer with a free computer and printer, but did not bill the lawyer for its electronic legal research service. The lawyer sued Law Find, Inc. for breach of contract. Who should prevail and why?
Law Find, Inc., because the lawyer received the firm’s letter withdrawing the offer before the lawyer dispatched her acceptance.
Vino, a school teacher who had converted the backyard of his home into a small grape orchard, sent an e-mail message jointly addressed to his neighbors Chardonnay and Merlot. Each e-mail read: “I am harvesting my grape crop tomorrow and will spend the next week making and bottling 50 bottles of my own private label wine. Need to sell quickly. Guarantee for two days that you can buy all 50 bottles at $50 per bottle.” Within two hours of the receiving the e-mail, Chardonnay ordered 50 bottles of wine at the quoted price by return e-mail to Vino. Later that day, Chardonnay mentioned to Merlot that Chardonnay had ordered 50 bottles of Vino’s wine. Still later the same day, Merlot ordered 50 bottles of wine at the quoted price by return e-mail to Vino. With whom, if anyone, does Vino have a contractual obligation to supply 50 bottles of wine?
Chardonnay only, because Merlot had acquired reliable information that Vino had sold the wine to Chardonnay before Merlot ordered the wine.
A sculptor and a baseball team representative met at a restaurant, over dinner, to discuss the sculptor’s creation of a statue of the team’s former famous baseball player to be erected at the entrance to the team’s new baseball stadium. After the two agreed upon all of the terms of a deal except for price, the team’s representative offered to pay the sculptor $25,000 to create the statue. The sculptor replied that she would create the statue for $50,000 and that this price would be good for six months. The sculptor wrote this down on a napkin and signed the napkin. The team’s representative took the napkin and said that $50,000 was probably more money than it wanted to pay. The team’s representative then paid the entire tab for the meal as a thank you for the sculptor’s generosity in giving the team time to consider the offer. Two months later, the sculptor e-mailed the baseball team’s representative that the price for the statue would be $60,000 instead of $50,000. An hour after the sculptor sent the e-mail, without having seen any of his e-mail, the baseball team’s representative telephoned the sculptor. The sculptor did not answer the telephone. The baseball team’s representative left a voicemail message that the team would hire the sculptor to create the statue for $50,000 pursuant to the terms (e.g. height of statue) agreed at the restaurant. After listening to his voicemail, sculptor consulted you, his attorney, to ask if he was contractually obligated to the baseball team to create the statue for $50,000. Your advice should be:
The sculptor is not contractually obligated.
A tourist decided to attend a live concert performance at a casino in Las Vegas. He ordered a ticket for a front row seat and paid for it online using a credit card. The website he used to order and pay for the ticket provided time, price, and seat information for the performance but did not state any other terms. The website instructed him to pick up his ticket from a ticket office next to the concert venue not later than 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the performance. The tourist picked up his ticket 30 minutes before the beginning of the performance. One side of the ticket listed several terms following this statement: “By being admitted to the concert venue, the holder of this ticket expressly agrees to the following terms.” One of the terms stated that the performance involved theatrical smoke that would linger for several minutes over seats closest to the stage and offered to reseat at the back of the concert venue any patron for whom the smoke might aggravate a respiratory ailment. The last term stated: “NO REFUNDS OR EXCHANGES EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY MANAGEMENT.” The tourist, who has a respiratory ailment that would be aggravated by the theatrical smoke, read the terms and decided that he didn’t want his seat in the front row and didn’t want to be reseated at the back of the concert venue. He therefore didn’t enter the concert venue. Half an hour after the concert began, the tourist asked for a refund. The ticket office declined his request but offered to refund the difference between the price of the most expensive and least expensive concert ticket. The tourist declined that offer and didn’t attend the concert. Which of the following is true?
The tourist is entitled to a refund on a theory of restitution.
Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China in 1997. Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy from but is still considered to be subject to the supreme authority of the People’s Republic of China. In 2015, an investment banker headquartered in the United States hired a marketing firm to assess and prepare “a report on the potential for investment banking opportunities in China.” The investment banker expected the report to cover both mainland China and Hong Kong but did not mention Hong Kong in the letter agreement between the two. The marketing firm undertook an assessment and prepared a report covering investment opportunities in mainland China but the report did not cover investment opportunities in Hong Kong. By failing to assess and report on investment banking opportunities in Hong Kong, did the marketing company breach a contract with the investment banker?
Yes, if the marketing firm had reason to know that the investment banker thought that its letter agreement referring to “China” included Hong Kong and the investment banker had no reason to know that the marking company thought that “China” excluded Hong Kong.
