Try this Contracts MC question? Forum

[Mr.Throwback]

Seller offered in writing to sell her house to Buyer if, by August 1st, he paid her
$100,000, wrote a sonnet that professed love for her, and brought her a box of expensive
chocolates. Seller had a prom date with Buyer in high school several years ago, and she
was terribly hurt when he broke off his prom date with her. Buyer knew that Seller had
harbored intense hurt feelings over his actions in high school. Buyer promised Seller in
writing that he would pay $100,000, write a sonnet professing love for Seller, and bring a
box of expensive chocolates. On August 1st, Buyer brought Seller a bank cashier’s check
for $100,000 [this is as good as $100,000 in cash] but brought no sonnet nor box of
chocolates. Seller then refused to sell her house to Buyer.

If Buyer sues for specific performance of Seller’s offer to sell her house to him, is he
likely to prevail?
a. Yes, because a contract was created when Buyer promised to pay $100,000, write
a sonnet, and bring a box of chocolates, and the usual remedy for breach of
contract in this situation is specific performance.
b. Yes, because a contract was created when Buyer promised to pay $100,000, writea sonnet, and bring a box of chocolates, and Buyer’s failure to write a sonnet or
bring a box of chocolates is irrelevant to whether a contract exists.
c. No, because Buyer never accepted Seller’s offer.
d. No, while a contract was created when Buyer promised to pay $100,000, write a
sonnet, and bring a box of chocolates, Buyer only performed one of his three
promises.

I'm saying B. This should be an easy question, I just feel like I need some other feedback. Thanks!

[DocHawkeye]

I say A. The contract was for a transfer of interest in real property. Generally, because a legal remedy (i.e.: money damages) would not put the buyer in the same place as though the seller had performed, the legal remedy is inadequate and the court must turn to an equitable remedy - specific performance. Specific performance is the normal remedy for a breach of contract for a transfer of interest in real property.

B is wrong because the question does not ask whether or not there is a contract. Buyer's actions prove the existence of the contract. The question is the terms of the contract. Buyer could probably argue that the poem and chocolates are irrelevant in that he substantially performed under the contract and is thus entitled to performance by the seller - i.e. specific performance (see answer a).

C is wrong because Buyer's actions affirm the existence of the contract and the facts tell us that Buyer agreed exactly to Seller's terms. Seller might be entitled to a Statute of Frauds defense, stating the lack of a writing is the lack of valid contract since the contract was for a transfer of interest in real property, but the facts do not make the lack of a writing clear.

I'm having a little trouble getting past D, but I would offer a substantial performance argument. The second and third conditions are irrelevant.

But contracts was a long time ago, and I could be (very) wrong.

[Myself]

.

[Mr.Throwback]

But if he demonstrated substantial performance then he IS likely to prevail. Right? So D says he won't get specific performance.

[moonman157]

Substantial performance relies heavily on the distinction between independent and dependent promises, no? As in, substantial performance would be met if they specified a specific brand of chocolate and you gave them an extremely comparable brand in terms of cost and quality, not whether or not you gave them chocolate at all?

[dowu]

I chose D.

[Myself]

.

[sublime]

..

[AllDangle]

Can't an argument be made for C since seller was not looking for a promise in return, but instead sought the payment, sonnet and chocolates? It seems like it was a unilateral contract that could only be accepted with performance, which wouldn't be complete until all three conditions were met. Even though he wrote that he accepted the terms, the contract was essentially a unilateral contract that couldn't be accepted until there was performance. She didn't seek his return promise as acceptance, she sought the performance as acceptance.

[Mr.Throwback]

The seller definitely was bargaining for the sonnets and poem, considering the prom fact. Only problem is, we never did substantial performance in class...

[Mr.Throwback]

Can't an argument be made for C since seller was not looking for a promise in return, but instead sought the payment, sonnet and chocolates? It seems like it was a unilateral contract that could only be accepted with performance, which wouldn't be complete until all three conditions were met. Even though he wrote that he accepted the terms, the contract was essentially a unilateral contract that couldn't be accepted until there was performance. She didn't seek his return promise as acceptance, she sought the performance as acceptance.

I think it's bilateral. There's an exchange of promises....? Ugh

[AllDangle]

Can't an argument be made for C since seller was not looking for a promise in return, but instead sought the payment, sonnet and chocolates? It seems like it was a unilateral contract that could only be accepted with performance, which wouldn't be complete until all three conditions were met. Even though he wrote that he accepted the terms, the contract was essentially a unilateral contract that couldn't be accepted until there was performance. She didn't seek his return promise as acceptance, she sought the performance as acceptance.

I think it's bilateral. There's an exchange of promises....? Ugh

Even though there was an exchange of promises, the initial offer did not seek the promise in return for/as acceptance of the offer (aka didn't seek a bilateral contract). Seller didn't intend to be bound until buyer performed the terms. She agreed to sell if he performed the terms. She didn't agree to sell if he made a return promise. That's my 1L contract thinking at least.

[whatsyourdeal]

Havent done K since the bar, so here goes:

A & B: no. A K exists, and SP is the remedy used for Ks involving a house. But, the issue here is substantial performance. Using the factors analyzing material breach, seller is deprived of the benefit she bargained for, as it was important to her to extract such benefit due to their past. Though buyer's partially performed by paying the purchase price, seller was actively seeking the sonnet and chocolates too, and the absence of those things will deprive her of her benefit. So no to A and B.

C: not about acceptance here, because a K is formed. It is a bilateral K, as both buyer and seller exchanged promises to exchange the land for consideration on a future date (aug 1). It is also in writing, satisfying the statute of frauds. Since C asks about acceptance, no because acceptance occurred, and this is no longer a formation problem.

D: Yup. Buyer did not substantially perform. Also looking at it from a condition precedent aspect, the order of performance is buyer fulfills condition precedents of paying and giving sonnet and chocolates before sellers duty matures.

[dowu]

The buyer promised her those three things in a written K. The seller would be obligated to perform her versio of the K if and only if the buyer fulfilled her conditions. He clearly accepted her conditions via said K. He did not filfill her conditions, therefore, she is not obligated to perform. Consequently, the buyers lawsuit will not prevail. For those reasons I chose D.

[whatsyourdeal]

OP, maybe i missed it, but is this a question from your 1L class, a supplement, or for bar study? Felt like a bar study question to me, so just wondering.

Also, whats the answer?

[Mr.Throwback]

My Contracts prof sends out a group of questions like this every weekend, due the following monday. We don't find out the answers until wednesday...

[Mr.Throwback]

My final is 67 questions of these extremely ambiguous questions. Any studying tips for questions such as these?

[Myself]

.

[whatsyourdeal]

Lol. Since you said your class hasn't learned substantial performance yet, those of us who chose D may be disappointed come Wednesday (not that we'd be wrong, though). Let us know Wednesday, please.

As for finals studying for MCs, if I were you, I'd pick up Emanuels Crunchtime for K now to learn the substantive stuff, and also pick up Lexis Q&A for K sometime by early November to prep for your final. For all my MC finals, I found Q&A really prepared me well bc the questions in the QA were generally more difficult than what my professors concocted. Also, ask any upperclassmen who took your K professors exam if they remember any specific questions (and answers): some professors will recycle questions and if tou are aware of it, you can just jot the answer down and move on.

[Mr.Throwback]

How about this one? §90?

1. Uncle told Niece that if she went to Law School, Uncle’s alma mater, that he would pay
for her first year’s tuition. It was important to Uncle that his Niece attend Law School for
a variety of personal and business reasons, so Uncle could say that his Niece was in
attendance at Law School. After Niece applied to and was accepted by Law School, she
told Uncle in May that she would definitely attend Law School in the fall. Just before
Law School started in August, Uncle died. Niece attended Law School but Executor of
Uncle’s estate refused to pay for her first year’s tuition.

If Niece sues Uncle’s Estate for breach of contract, what is the likely result?

a. Niece will receive damages for breach of contract in the amount of her first year’s
tuition because a contract was created when she assured Uncle “that she would
definitely Law School in the fall.”
b. Niece has an enforceable contract because she provided consideration by
attending Law School and her attendance was what motivated Uncle to make his
promise to pay for her tuition.
c. Niece will not recover anything because Uncle did not intend to be legally bound
due to the family relationship between Niece and Uncle.
d. Niece will not recover anything because Uncle’s death prevented the formation of
a contract.

[dowu]

D

[Myself]

.

[Mr.Throwback]

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

[Mr.Throwback]

I think it's A as well.

[Myself]

.