Completed on Sunday, 23 February 2020, 11:49 AM

Time taken 21 mins 1 sec

Grade 19.00 out of 20.00 (95%)

Question 1
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Question 1 is based on the following fact situation.

Ford wrote Firestone saying: "Please ship two thousand Type XL tires per catalog price..." Firestone
shipped two thousand Type XY Tires, which are superficially similar to Type XL and can be
distinguished only by taking them apart. Type XY is an obsolete model with no market demand. On
tender of delivery, Ford discovered the discrepancy and demanded that Firestone deliver Type XL
tires. Firestone refused.

Ford sues for breach of contract, what result?

Select one:
A. Firestone wins, because there was no meeting of the minds.
B. Firestone wins, because his shipment was only a counter offer which Ford rejected.
C. Ford wins, because the offeror is master of his offer.
D. Ford wins, because Firestone's shipment of Type XY tires constituted an acceptance of Ford's

offer to buy Type XL tires. 

Feedback
The correct answer is: Ford wins, because Firestone's shipment of Type XY tires constituted an
acceptance of Ford's offer to buy Type XL tires.

Question 2
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question
Question text
Questions 2 and 3 are based on the following fact situation.

Sonny and Bob entered into a written contract pursuant to which Sonny agreed to manufacture for
Bob, and Bob agreed to buy, 10,000 computer chips at a price $100 per chip, "it being expressly
agreed and understood that Bob shall not be liable under this contract unless all 10,000 computer
chips are delivered to Bob's warehouse no later than 8 a.m., May 18, 1998."

Only 8,000 computer chips were tendered by Sonny at 8:30 a.m. delivery on May 19, 1998. The
following day also at 8:30 a.m., Sonny tendered the remaining 2,000 computer chips. Bob refused to
accept any of the computer chips.

The provision in quotation marks is:

Select one:

A. An express condition. 
B. An implied condition.
C. An express promise.
D. Neither a promise nor a condition.

Feedback
The correct answer is: An express condition.

Question 3
Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
The contract is:
Select one:
A. Indivisible.

B. Divisible. 
C. Capable of being interpreted as either divisible or indivisible.
D. None of the above.

Feedback
The correct answer is: Indivisible.
Question 4
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Questions 4 and 5 are based on the following fact situation.

Cal's Collectibles, a retailer, and Lower Deck, Inc., a wholesaler, agreed that Lower Deck would sell,
and Cal's Collectibles would buy, a carton of rare baseball cards. No other details for sale and
delivery were mentioned in the agreement.

At common law, the Cal's Collectibles/Lower Deck contract would be:

Select one:
A. Valid.

B. Invalid, due to indefiniteness. 

C. Invalid, because Cal's Collectibles and Lower Deck did not agree.
D. Invalid by its terms.

Feedback
The correct answer is: Invalid, due to indefiniteness.

Question 5
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Under the U.C.C., the court may find the missing terms in the Cal's Collectibles/Lower Deck contract
by:
Select one:
A. Looking to the course of performance.
B. Looking to the course of dealing.
C. Looking to the usage of the trade.
D. All of the above. 

Feedback
The correct answer is: All of the above.

Question 6
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Questions 6-10 are based on the following fact situation.

On December 20, 1998, Tiger, owner of Tiger's Golf Shop, entered into a written contract with
Bottom Flight, owner of the Bottom Flight Golf Ball Factory, under which Tiger agreed to purchase
his golf ball requirements for the calendar year 1999. The contract provided that "Tiger shall have no
obligation to receive any specified quantity of golf balls, but only his weekly requirements" and that
Bottom Flight "agrees to supply such requirements" at the fixed price per dozen specified in the
contract, "cash on delivery." During 1998, Tiger's requirements of golf balls for his golf shop
averaged approximately 50 dozen per week.

Early in 1999, Bottom Flight experienced a rise in his costs and decided he could no longer afford to
supply Tiger's requirements at the price fixed in their agreement. If Bottom Flight asserts that the
agreement is not binding upon him because of lack of consideration will Bottom Flight prevail?
Select one:
A. Yes, because requirements contracts lack mutuality of obligation.
B. Yes, because the provision that Tiger had no obligation to receive any specified quantity made
the contract illusory.
C. No, because requirements contracts do not need consideration to be enforceable.
D. No, because Tiger's agreement to buy his requirements was sufficient consideration for Bottom

Flight's agreement to supply those requirements. 

Feedback
The correct answer is: No, because Tiger's agreement to buy his requirements was sufficient
consideration for Bottom Flight's agreement to supply those requirements.

Question 7
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
 Flag question

Question text
Assume that on May 1, 1999, Tiger opened "Tiger's Golf Shop #2" in a new building. During the first
four months of 1999, Tiger had ordered an average of 50 dozen golf balls per week from Bottom
Flight. The first week in May he ordered 75 dozen golf balls, explaining that he needed the larger
quantity because of the opening of Tiger's Golf Shop #2. Bottom Flight refused to supply any more
than 50 dozen at the priced fixed in the agreement. Is Bottom Flight justified in his refusal?
Select one:
A. Yes, if the normal requirements of the original golf shop are approximately 50 dozen per

week. 
B. Yes, because the opening of Tiger's Golf Shop #2 was an unanticipated occurrence which
excused Bottom Flight from his contract with Tiger.
C. No, because the agreement provided that Bottom Flight would supply Tiger's requirements of golf
balls at the fixed price.
D. No, if in opening Tiger's Golf Shop #2, Tiger relied on his requirements contract with Bottom
Flight.

Feedback
The correct answer is: Yes, if the normal requirements of the original golf shop are approximately 50
dozen per week.

Question 8
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Assume that in May, Tiger decided the price fixed in his contract with Bottom Flight was too high
since Tiger was making a profit of only twenty-five cents per ball. Tiger asked Bottom Flight to agree
to charge a lower price, but Bottom Flight refused. Tiger thereupon stopped selling golf balls in his
shop and switched to bowling supplies. If Bottom Flight sues Tiger for breach of contract, who will
prevail?
Select one:
A. Bottom Flight, because the elimination by Tiger of his requirements of golf balls did not occur in

good faith. 
B. Bottom Flight, because under the agreement Tiger had an absolute obligation to have
requirements of approximately 50 dozen golf balls per week.
C. Tiger, because the inadequate profit on golf ball sales was a permissible reason for Tiger's
eliminating his requirements of golf balls.
D. Tiger, because a buyer under a requirements contract may properly eliminate his requirements
for any reason.

Feedback
The correct answer is: Bottom Flight, because the elimination by Tiger of his requirements of golf
balls did not occur in good faith.

Question 9
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Assume that in May Tiger sold Tiger's Golf Shop to Ed, assigning his rights and delegating his duties
under the contract with Bottom Flight to Ed. Ed decided to continue using the name "Tiger's Golf
Shop." When Bottom Flight was notified of the sale, they refused to supply golf balls to Ed for Tiger's
Golf Shop. What are Ed's rights, if any, against Bottom Flight for the balance of the year 1999?
Select one:
A. Ed has no rights against Bottom Flight.
B. Ed is entitled to have Bottom Flight supply Ed's requirements of golf balls for Tiger's Golf Shop,
but not in a quantity unreasonably disproportionate to Tiger's normal requirements before he sold to

Ed. 
C. Ed is entitled to have Bottom Flight supply whatever quantity of golf balls Ed might order for
Tiger's Golf Shop, but Ed is free to buy golf balls elsewhere.
D. Ed is entitled to have Bottom Flight supply whatever requirements of golf balls Ed might have for
Tiger's Golf Shop.

Feedback
The correct answer is: Ed is entitled to have Bottom Flight supply Ed's requirements of golf balls for
Tiger's Golf Shop, but not in a quantity unreasonably disproportionate to Tiger's normal requirements
before he sold to Ed.

Question 10
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Assume the same facts as in question 6, except that upon being notified of the sale to Ed, Bottom
Flight agreed with Ed and Tiger, that Ed should be substituted for Tiger in the agreement between
Bottom Flight and Tiger. In June, Ed started buying his requirements of golf balls for Tiger's Golf
Shop from a supplier other than Bottom Flight. Does Bottom Flight have any rights against Tiger?
Select one:
A. Yes, because a party who delegates his duties under a contract to a third party remains liable for
breach of those duties.
B. Yes, because Bottom Flight was a third party beneficiary of the agreement between Tiger and Ed.
C. No, because Tiger's delegation of his duties to Ed discharged Tiger from any further duty to
Bottom Flight.

D. No, because the arrangement between Tiger, Ed and Bottom Flight was a novation. 

Feedback
The correct answer is: No, because the arrangement between Tiger, Ed and Bottom Flight was a
novation.

Question 11
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Questions 11-13 are based on the following fact situation.

On the morning of Thursday, November 19th, the following conversation took place:

Alex: "My '53 Corvette hasn't been running smooth the last few weeks. I think the engine needs to be
rebuilt. Cal's Corvette City said it would buy the car for $10,000 and I think I'll take them up on the
offer."

Latka: "Don't do that, Alex. In my spare time, I rebuild engines. If you promise to pay me $1,000, I'll
fix it by next Tuesday and it'll be in super condition."
Alex: "Great, it's a deal! Here's $1,000 and my car keys."

The following Wednesday the following conversation took place:

Alex: "Have you repaired my car yet?"

Latka: "No, I've decided to leave today for a three week vacation to Lythana and I won't have time to
rebuild the engine."

Alex: "Look, I know that $1,000 was a low price for the work that's needed. If you can fix it by
tomorrow, I'll pay you an extra $1,000. Furthermore, I won't file the small claims action against you
that I was planning to initiate today."

Latka: "Okay, that Judge Judy on TV can be murder. Hold off on the suit and give me the extra
$1,000 tomorrow when I return the car."

The next day, Latka gave Alex the car. The engine was expertly repaired. Alex refused to give Latka
the extra $1,000.

The conversation which took place on November 19th resulted in:

Select one:
A. A contract for the sale of services governed by the Uniform Commercial Code.
B. A unilateral contract.

C. A bilateral contract. 
D. An unconscionable contract.

Feedback
The correct answer is: A bilateral contract.

Question 12
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
In a suit by Latka in small claims court to recover the additional $1,000 promised by Alex, Latka will:
Select one:
A. Win, because he performed his part of the bargain.
B. Win, because the second contract for $2,000 superseded the original $1,000 contract.
C. Lose, because the $2,000 contract did not superseded the $1,000 contract.
D. Lose, because Latka had a preexisting duty to repair the car for $1,000. 

Feedback
The correct answer is: Lose, because Latka had a preexisting duty to repair the car for $1,000.

Question 13
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Assume that on November 20th, Latka gave the Corvette to Louie, who entered into a valid contract
with Latka to rebuild the engine to super condition. Louie was under the legitimate impression that
the car actually belonged to Latka. If Louie fails to repair the car:
Select one:
A. Alex has a cause of action against Louie only.

B. Alex has a cause of action against Latka only. 

C. Alex has a cause of action against Louie and Latka.
D. Alex has no cause of action against Louie or Latka.

Feedback
The correct answer is: Alex has a cause of action against Latka only.

Question 14
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Question 14 is based on the following fact situation.

Bill contracts with Flint for the sale of his painting, "Monica." Before time for delivery, "Monica" is
destroyed in a fire.. The Bill/Flint contract is:
Select one:
A. Enforceable, because paintings are a proper subject for contract.
B. Enforceable, because the contract was agreed upon prior to "Monica's" destruction..
C. Unenforceable, because it violates the Statute of Frauds.

D. Unenforceable, because of the destruction of the subject matter. 

Feedback
The correct answer is: Unenforceable, because of the destruction of the subject matter.

Question 15
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Question 15 is based on the following fact situation.

Georgia is the aged owner of the St. Louis Lambs professional football team. One evening a burglar
broke into Georgia's Brentwood mansion. Georgia reported two items missing, her magic facial
cream and an autographed photo of her favorite player. The photo contained the following
inscription, "Georgia, you're the best I've ever had!" /s/ "O.J."

Georgia, who felt the only way to find a ninth husband was to recover the magic facial cream, orally
promised Joe Friday, a detective with the police department, $10,000 and two season tickets if he
would find the thief. As a result of Friday's investigation, the thief was found and the items were
returned to Georgia. If Friday brings suit for the reward:

Judgment for:
Select one:
A. Georgia, since Friday's position required him to conduct the investigation and work with the

prosecutor to find the thief. 

B. Georgia, since she owned the stolen items.
C. Friday, because he found the thief.
D. Friday, because the items were returned to Georgia as she requested.

Feedback
The correct answer is: Georgia, since Friday's position required him to conduct the investigation and
work with the prosecutor to find the thief.

Question 16
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
 Flag question

Question text
Question 16 is based on the following fact situation.

Kenny owes Don Corleone $40,000 on a promissory note payable December 31st. Kenny offers to
pay Corleone $30,500 in full satisfaction of the note on November 30th.

If Corleone accepts Kenny's offer, the contract:

Select one:
A. Fails for lack of sufficient consideration.
B. Fails because Kenny will pay only a portion of his debt to Corleone.
C. Is valid, because the parties agreed.
D. Is valid, because the right of Corleone to collect on November 30th instead of December 31st

constitutes consideration for Kenny's new obligation. 

Feedback
The correct answer is: Is valid, because the right of Corleone to collect on November 30th instead of
December 31st constitutes consideration for Kenny's new obligation.

Question 17
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Questions 17-19 are based on the following fact situation.

On October 7, 1999, a Virgin Island Cruiseline's (hereinafter referred to as "VIC") ship sank in the
Atlantic killing all 157 passengers aboard. Three of those killed were Larry, Moe and Curley. On
October 10, 1999, their widows were approached by the famous trial attorney, Melvin Bellfoot.
The widows asked Bellfoot to sue VIC on their behalf. Bellfoot said he would look into the matter
and let them know. One week later, on October 17th he wrote each of them a letter stating that
his inquiries indicated that the case would be extremely complex, but that he was willing to
undertake it. He concluded in the letter(s) that: "My fee will be 25% of any proceeds of the
litigation. Let me know if this is agreeable." The three women all replied in writing that the terms
were agreeable and appointed him as their attorney.
On October 30th, Bellfoot made the following oral promise to his friend, Alexis: "In consideration
of your love and affection, I promise to assign you 10% of any and all proceeds which I shall
receive from my lawsuit against VIC." Bellfoot then spent months conducting a thorough
investigation of the ship disaster. He concluded that the sinking resulted from the Captain's
negligence and filed a damage action against VIC on February 10, 2000.

In March, 2000, VIC offered to settle the case for $200,000 but the three clients, on Bellfoot's
advice, rejected the offer and the case proceeded to trial. A pretrial hearing was scheduled for
April 10, 2000.

On April 1, 2000, Bellfoot wrote the following letter to the Oscar Wilde School of Law, his alma
mater:

"April 1, 2000

It has been brought to my attention that the law school will shortly begin construction on a new
building. I would like to make the following donation. I wish to assign a percentage of the fees
which I shall be receiving from my litigation with VIC.

/s/ Bellfoot"

When this letter was received by the law school on April 2nd, Dean Allred telephoned Bellfoot and
said, "We at the Wilde School of Law appreciate your magnanimous donation. In view of your
assignment, we would like to have your portrait painted and hung in the Moot Court room of our
new law school. The portrait will be titled "King of the Torts". If this meets your approval, please
contact me." Bellfoot replied, "Dean, I would be honored to have my portrait painted for the law
school." Dean Allred then stated, "In that case, I'll contact Pablo, the artist, whom we retain for
such portraits and arrange for your sitting." Pablo was then hired by the law school and paid
$500.00 to paint Bellfoot's picture. 

On April 10, 2000, the pretrial hearing in the VIC lawsuit commenced. During the hearing, Bellfoot
engaged in a heated discussion with VIC's attorney, suffered a severe heart attack and died that
evening. A continuance of two weeks was granted by the court. The plaintiffs then appointed F.
Lei Whalely, another attorney who was strongly recommended to them and whom they promised
30% of any proceeds of the litigation. The trial resumed but on May 1st, VIC offered $300,000 in
settlement and on Whalely's advice, the three plaintiffs accepted this sum and paid Whalely
$90,000 (30% of $300,000). Note: the time spent by Bellfoot in preparing for trial was reasonably
worth $15,000.

In an action by the executor of Bellfoot's estate against the widows of Larry, Moe, and Curley to
recover his (Bellfoot's) percentage of the settlement, the court will most likely hold that Bellfoot's
estate will be entitled to recover:

Select one:
A. Nothing.

B. $15,000, the reasonable value of services rendered. 

C. $75,000 (25% of the final settlement).
D. $90,000 (25% of the final settlement plus the value of services rendered).

Feedback
The correct answer is: $15,000, the reasonable value of services rendered.

Question 18
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
In an action by Dean Allred against the executor of Bellfoot's estate to recover her percentage of the
proceeds from the VIC litigation, she will most likely:
Select one:
A. Recover, since Bellfoot's purported assignment of future rights expected to arise under a contract
in existence would be enforceable.
B. Not recover, since the right of an assignee under a gratuitous assignment is terminated by the
death of the assignor.
C. Recover, since Bellfoot's promise would be enforceable as an irrevocable gratuitous

assignment. 
D. Not recover, since Bellfoot's purported oral assignment was unenforceable as within the Statute
of Frauds.

Feedback
The correct answer is: Recover, since Bellfoot's promise would be enforceable as an irrevocable
gratuitous assignment.

Question 19
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
If the Law School asserts a claim against the executor of Bellfoot's estate to recover Bellfoot's
promised donation under the April 1st letter, the best theory of recovery would be based on:
Select one:
A. Their rights as a donee beneficiary.
B. Their rights as a creditor beneficiary.

C. Their rights as assignee under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 

D. Unjust enrichment.
Feedback
The correct answer is: Their rights as assignee under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Question 20
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text
Question 20 is based on the following fact situation.

Fast Eddie offered to sell his used car dealership to Carl Crook. Before Crook accepted, Eddie
received an offer by Sally to buy the dealership at a higher price.

Eddie immediately sent a FAX to Crook stating, "I revoke my offer to sell the dealership to you. Sally
has offered me a better price." Crook received the FAX but did not read it as he was rushing to catch
a plane for the Cayman Islands to pick up some cash.

The FAX from Eddie to Crook was a(n):

Select one:
A. Effective acceptance to purchase the store.

B. Effective revocation. 
C. Effective rejection.
D. Counteroffer.

Feedback
The correct answer is: Effective revocation.