Try this Contracts MC question?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
hephaestus
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:21 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby hephaestus » Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:44 pm

I would say A for the second one.

resilience99
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby resilience99 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:16 pm

...

whatsyourdeal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:25 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby whatsyourdeal » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:20 pm

Not a 90 problem because this is not promissory estoppel. This involves an actual K, whereas P.E. is an alt theory of obligation where no K in enforceable.

B is the right answer. This question mainly involves two issues: consideration and unilateral Ks. Consideration as to whether this is an illusory K (its not bc niece has forbeared her options of other law schools and thus constrained her discretion) andunilateral K; and also whether this is a unilateral K vs bilateral K. First, understand what a legal promise is vs an act: promise= a statement that something will or wont be done in the future; act= doing or refrain from doing something. Second, what is being bargained here: a promise to pay future tuition for the promise to attend law school? Or promise to pay tuition for the actual attendance of law school? Based on the facts, it seems like the intent of the uncle is the latter, and it seems that intent is understood by the niece as well. Thus, it is a unilteral K. The offer is thus open, and the niece's actual attendance is performance accepting the offer, this concluding the bargain.

A: No. There is a unilateral K. A biltaeral K would be created by the niece's assurance. Since its a unilateral K, nieces assurance is irrelevant to acceptance.

C: relationships can affect courts view of the enforceability of Ks, but not dispositive.

D: while death can excuse some instances of performance, not in this case.

whatsyourdeal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:25 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby whatsyourdeal » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:21 pm

ajax adonis wrote:Yall better post the answers when they come out.

I also think that if you give an answer, you should let everyone know if you're a 1L still.



Strongly Agree

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby Mr.Throwback » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:51 pm

I think the facts are very similar to Ricketts v. Scothorn.

grandfather makes promise to pay granddaughter if she stops working. She quits, but his estate denied payment, claiming there was no consideration for it.

Promissory estoppel was applied in this case.

But I do see the argument that consideration IS present here.
Last edited by Mr.Throwback on Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

whatsyourdeal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:25 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby whatsyourdeal » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:15 pm

Promissory estoppel is not applicable here mainly because of your answer choices. Look at your answer choices: A-D does not provide any hint of PE. Its not whether PE actually applies to the fact pattern (it does, in the alternative) but whether PE is relevant to the answers presented in A-D. Again, nowhere in answers A-D are there any Promissory Estoppel concerns.

Here's why in detail:

Promissory estoppel is used as an alternative theory of obligation (i.e. formation of contract is not or cannot be alleged). P.E. Elements: 1) promise; 2) Inducement of reliance; 3) actual reliance; 4) justice requires remedy. Again, P.E. is used only where no contract arises.

A and B both specifically state Niece will recover from BREACH OF CONTRACT. That means a Contract was formed. P.E. irrelevant here.

C: States niece will recover NOTHING, implying no recovery under any theory. Putting aside the fact that this answer is instantly wrong due to the assumption of no K due to family ties, is there P.E. here in the event no contract was formed? Yes, because there was a promise (go to law school), it induced reliance (niece went to law school), actual reliance is present (niece actually went to law school), and justice would require remedy. So yes, P.E. is present here. But there is already a K here, so the answer is wrong and thus, PE is irrelevant.

D: again, death does not excuse uncle's obligation here.

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby Mr.Throwback » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:35 pm

whatsyourdeal wrote:Promissory estoppel is not applicable here mainly because of your answer choices. Look at your answer choices: A-D does not provide any hint of PE. Its not whether PE actually applies to the fact pattern (it does, in the alternative) but whether PE is relevant to the answers presented in A-D. Again, nowhere in answers A-D are there any Promissory Estoppel concerns.

Here's why in detail:

Promissory estoppel is used as an alternative theory of obligation (i.e. formation of contract is not or cannot be alleged). P.E. Elements: 1) promise; 2) Inducement of reliance; 3) actual reliance; 4) justice requires remedy. Again, P.E. is used only where no contract arises.

A and B both specifically state Niece will recover from BREACH OF CONTRACT. That means a Contract was formed. P.E. irrelevant here.

C: States niece will recover NOTHING, implying no recovery under any theory. Putting aside the fact that this answer is instantly wrong due to the assumption of no K due to family ties, is there P.E. here in the event no contract was formed? Yes, because there was a promise (go to law school), it induced reliance (niece went to law school), actual reliance is present (niece actually went to law school), and justice would require remedy. So yes, P.E. is present here. But there is already a K here, so the answer is wrong and thus, PE is irrelevant.

D: again, death does not excuse uncle's obligation here.


What if we were to look at the uncles promise as gratuitous? He should have reasonably expected to induce his niece to attend law school in reliance on the fact that he would pay tuition for first year.

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby Mr.Throwback » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:37 pm

The question is what is the likely result if suit is brought for breach of contract.

A states that she will receive damages ( in this case, reliance damages)

B just states she has an enforceable K. Doesn't really answer the question at hand.

whatsyourdeal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:25 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby whatsyourdeal » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:44 pm

Mr.Throwback wrote:The question is what is the likely result if suit is brought for breach of contract.

A states that she will receive damages ( in this case, reliance damages)

B just states she has an enforceable K. Doesn't really answer the question at hand.



Exactly my point. The bolded part assumes there is a breach of K. You don't go to P.E. if you have an actual K. The question asks "If niece sues for breach of contract." That, in conjunction with the answer choices, narrows your scope of issues to consider.

You're right that B doesn't necessarily answer the question at hand either. But I chose B because A's analysis is off: the assurance of attending law school is not the acceptance of the offer, since it is a unilateral K.

Also, assuming that the uncle's promise is gratuitous (you definitely could), none of the answers are congruent with PE because the first two assume breach of contract and the latter two effectively rule out recovery under PE, which, if the uncle's promise is gratuitous, is wrong because PE would be satisfied .
Last edited by whatsyourdeal on Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby Mr.Throwback » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:47 pm

whatsyourdeal wrote:
Mr.Throwback wrote:The question is what is the likely result if suit is brought for breach of contract.

A states that she will receive damages ( in this case, reliance damages)

B just states she has an enforceable K. Doesn't really answer the question at hand.



Exactly my point. The bolded part assumes there is a breach of K. You don't go to P.E. if you have an actual K. The question asks "If niece sues for breach of contract." That, in conjunction with the answer choices, narrows your scope of issues to consider.


So you're saying you can't bring suit for breach of contract and then recover under §90.

whatsyourdeal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:25 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby whatsyourdeal » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:52 pm

90 is an alternative theory of obligation. You choose one main theory to recover under, while you can pursue others (PE, unjust enrichment, implied in fact K) in the alternative. This differs from damages (reliance, expectation, etc.).

So yes, you only choose one theory to pursue. You usually go for breach of K when you have a K. When you have difficulties proving the K, you go for the alternative theories.

whatsyourdeal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:25 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby whatsyourdeal » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:53 pm

Mr.Throwback wrote:
whatsyourdeal wrote:
Mr.Throwback wrote:The question is what is the likely result if suit is brought for breach of contract.

A states that she will receive damages ( in this case, reliance damages)

B just states she has an enforceable K. Doesn't really answer the question at hand.



Exactly my point. The bolded part assumes there is a breach of K. You don't go to P.E. if you have an actual K. The question asks "If niece sues for breach of contract." That, in conjunction with the answer choices, narrows your scope of issues to consider.


So you're saying you can't bring suit for breach of contract and then recover under §90.


^ yeah, because 90 is used where there is no contract.

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby Mr.Throwback » Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:15 pm

I could see my professor saying that whether or not there is a contract here is debatable (because of the family situation) thus allowing a recovery under §90. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

.

Postby Myself » Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:18 pm

.
Last edited by Myself on Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

onionz
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:22 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby onionz » Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:44 pm

ajax adonis wrote:
whatsyourdeal wrote:Not a 90 problem because this is not promissory estoppel. This involves an actual K, whereas P.E. is an alt theory of obligation where no K in enforceable.

B is the right answer. This question mainly involves two issues: consideration and unilateral Ks. Consideration as to whether this is an illusory K (its not bc niece has forbeared her options of other law schools and thus constrained her discretion) andunilateral K; and also whether this is a unilateral K vs bilateral K. First, understand what a legal promise is vs an act: promise= a statement that something will or wont be done in the future; act= doing or refrain from doing something. Second, what is being bargained here: a promise to pay future tuition for the promise to attend law school? Or promise to pay tuition for the actual attendance of law school? Based on the facts, it seems like the intent of the uncle is the latter, and it seems that intent is understood by the niece as well. Thus, it is a unilteral K. The offer is thus open, and the niece's actual attendance is performance accepting the offer, this concluding the bargain.

A: No. There is a unilateral K. A biltaeral K would be created by the niece's assurance. Since its a unilateral K, nieces assurance is irrelevant to acceptance.

C: relationships can affect courts view of the enforceability of Ks, but not dispositive.

D: while death can excuse some instances of performance, not in this case.


Who said there was a unilateral K? The presumption is that a K is bilateral. A unilateral K occurs if someone offers something like: "I will give you $20 if and only if you wash my car; you can only accept by performance."


How is this anything but a unilateral contract? 'If she went to law school, he would pay tuition.' Sounds like she had to actually go to law school to accept.

Also I hope these aren't graded, since I imagine that it would be a honor code violation to get help...

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby Mr.Throwback » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:12 pm

OK READY FOR THIS?

The answer to the first question about the sonnet and chocolates is C. It was an offer that can only be accepted by performance and the offeror has full discretion of acceptance.

The answer to the next problem is D. The death of the Uncle prevented the formation of the K. Prof made a distinction between Uncle wanting her IN ATTENDANCE and her promise TO attend.

He also said both are Unilateral K

My prof kept admitting they aren't worded that great. But he was sure about his answers. (he's not exactly Kingsfield)

Bottom line is i'm fucked.

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby dowu » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:14 pm

Mr.Throwback wrote:OK READY FOR THIS?

The answer to the first question about the sonnet and chocolates is C. It was an offer that can only be accepted by performance and the offeror has full discretion of acceptance.

The answer to the next problem is D. The death of the Uncle prevented the formation of the K. Prof made a distinction between Uncle wanting her IN ATTENDANCE and her promise TO attend.

He also said both are Unilateral K

My prof kept admitting they aren't worded that great. But he was sure about his answers. (he's not exactly Kingsfield)

Bottom line is i'm fucked.

Bottom line is that I got #1 partially correct.

Bottom line is that I got #2 correct because I'm awesome. I was even thinking in the same line of reasoning as your professor.

Mr.Throwback wrote:Definitely not D. Acceptance was before death of offeror. When Niece told Uncle in May that she would attend.

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby Mr.Throwback » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:22 pm

^ Yes i know i was wrong. Thank you for quoting my wrong answer. You edited your post btw so nice try

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby Mr.Throwback » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:24 pm

Not sure why you care so much anyway.

Most of the posters here got them wrong. Better we get them wrong now.

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby dowu » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:26 pm

Mr.Throwback wrote:^ Yes i know i was wrong. Thank you for quoting my wrong answer. You edited your post btw so nice try

What? Sorry, i wasnt trying to make you look bad. The post I just quoted was your response to my initial answer for the second question. I re-edited my post to reflect exactly what I had initially wrote.

Give me the hardest question on that homework. I wanna see how I do. Lol

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby dowu » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:26 pm

Mr.Throwback wrote:Not sure why you care so much anyway.

Most of the posters here got them wrong. Better we get them wrong now.

I don't care "so much" bro. I honestly thought it was kinda cool that you posted these. Sorry if I offended you man. I honestly didnt intend to.

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby Mr.Throwback » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:28 pm

Have at it

Grocery placed a written purchase order with Supplier for 10,000 bottles of apple juice at
$1 each. Supplier responded with an acknowledgment form that contained this additional
term (i.e., additional to what the Grocery’s purchase order contained): “No implied
warranty of merchantability exists with respect to the products Supplier is selling.” The
10,000 bottles were shipped to Grocery which paid for them. Later, Grocery found that
the apple juice was spoiled. When Grocery complained that the apple juice was spoiled
and not fit for its ordinary purpose as apple juice, Supplier said that there was no implied
warranty of merchantability.

If Grocery sues Supplier for breach of contract, specifically for breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, is Grocery likely to prevail?

a. Yes, a contract was created by the exchange of Grocery’s purchase order and the
Supplier’s acknowledgment form, and Supplier’s additional term was excluded
from the contract because it was a material alteration of Grocery’s offer.
b. Yes, a contract was created by the conduct of the parties when Supplier shipped
the apple juice to Grocery and Grocery paid for the apple juice, and a UCC Article
2 gapfiller states that merchants selling goods of the kind give an implied
warranty of merchantability.
c. No, there is no contract because Supplier’s additional term was not a mirror image
acceptance of Seller’s offer.
d. No, while there is a contract, Supplier’s additional term is effective and there is no
implied warranty of merchantability.

And

Contractor placed a written purchase order with Producer for 100 tons of steel at $300 a
ton, or $30,000 in total. Producer responded with an acknowledgment form stating that
100 tons of aluminum would be shipped at a price of $500 a ton, or $50,000 in total.
Producer shipped 100 tons of aluminum to Contractor who took the aluminum and later
paid Producer $50,000. When the aluminum turned out to be defective, Contractor sued
Producer for breach of contract.

If Contractor sues Producer for breach of contract, specifically for breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, is Contractor likely to prevail?

a. Yes, a contract was created by the exchange of Contractor’s purchase order and
Producer’s acknowledgment form, and Producer breached its implied warranty of
merchantability.
b. Yes, a contract exists by conduct, and Producer breached its implied warranty of
merchantability.
c. No, while a contract was created by the exchange of Contractor’s purchase order
and Producer’s acknowledgment form, there is no implied warranty of
merchantability.
d. No, a contract was not created by the exchange of Contractor’s purchase order and
Producer’s acknowledgment form because the acknowledgment was not a definite
expression of acceptance.

whatsyourdeal
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:25 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby whatsyourdeal » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:29 pm

dowu wrote:
Mr.Throwback wrote:OK READY FOR THIS?

The answer to the first question about the sonnet and chocolates is C. It was an offer that can only be accepted by performance and the offeror has full discretion of acceptance.

The answer to the next problem is D. The death of the Uncle prevented the formation of the K. Prof made a distinction between Uncle wanting her IN ATTENDANCE and her promise TO attend.

He also said both are Unilateral K

My prof kept admitting they aren't worded that great. But he was sure about his answers. (he's not exactly Kingsfield)

Bottom line is i'm fucked.

Bottom line is that I got #1 partially correct.
Bottom line is that I got #2 correct because I'm awesome.


lol titcr.

as for OP, calm down. your final is not gonna be this difficult; there may be some questions this complex/confusing, but all 60ish questions shouldn't look like this. relax, and before your final buy/checkout the Lexis Q&A for contracts (and any other subject matter you have an MC final for). you will be fine.

also, if you're having this much trouble with the questions, think how difficult this must be for your class (those who even bothered trying to solve it).

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby dowu » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:30 pm

I'll say D for first one.

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Try this Contracts MC question?

Postby Mr.Throwback » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:33 pm

whatsyourdeal wrote:
dowu wrote:
Mr.Throwback wrote:OK READY FOR THIS?

The answer to the first question about the sonnet and chocolates is C. It was an offer that can only be accepted by performance and the offeror has full discretion of acceptance.

The answer to the next problem is D. The death of the Uncle prevented the formation of the K. Prof made a distinction between Uncle wanting her IN ATTENDANCE and her promise TO attend.

He also said both are Unilateral K

My prof kept admitting they aren't worded that great. But he was sure about his answers. (he's not exactly Kingsfield)

Bottom line is i'm fucked.

Bottom line is that I got #1 partially correct.
Bottom line is that I got #2 correct because I'm awesome.


lol titcr.

as for OP, calm down. your final is not gonna be this difficult; there may be some questions this complex/confusing, but all 60ish questions shouldn't look like this. relax, and before your final buy/checkout the Lexis Q&A for contracts (and any other subject matter you have an MC final for). you will be fine.

also, if you're having this much trouble with the questions, think how difficult this must be for your class (those who even bothered trying to solve it).


Thanks. Already bought the Emanuals and will definitely get the Q and A




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests