Try this Contracts MC question? Forum

[whatsyourdeal]

oh yeah, OP, did you ever get a chance to ask your professor if the second question involved 90?

also, he's right about D for question #2. been awhile, but death excuses formation of Ks, and since she hadn't accepted the K by the time uncle moneybags kicked the bucket, K was not formed. i was thinking about death excusing performance of an already formed K, which it does not (i don't think).

[dowu]

As for the second one why did the producer send steel instead of aluminum? I don't know contracts, but I would say that even though the contractor paid, they had originally wrote up something for steel. So I guess my answer would be B.

[Mr.Throwback]

oh yeah, OP, did you ever get a chance to ask your professor if the second question involved 90?

also, he's right about D for question #2. been awhile, but death excuses formation of Ks, and since she hadn't accepted the K by the time uncle moneybags kicked the bucket, K was not formed. i was thinking about death excusing performance of an already formed K, which it does not (i don't think).

He said for answer choice D, (the correct answer), an argument can be made for 90. He said he didnt like his wording for D but maintained it was the correct answer.

[Mr.Throwback]

As for the second one why did the producer send steel instead of aluminum? I don't know contracts, but I would say that even though the contractor paid, they had originally wrote up something for steel. So I guess my answer would be B.

First one is A, second is B. See 2-207

[dowu]

I meant aluminum instead of steel. I steel got it right though.

[First Offense]

I'll say B and B.

I don't think B falls under the "Unless" clause of 2-207, so "materially altering" the deal doesn't really matter. Gap-fillers are going to be used to determine the terms, and I'm going to guess the part about Article 2s gap-filler is adequate (haven't gone over the specific gap-fillers in my Ks class).

Second one seems similar, but I don't know about the implied warranty of merchantability as a whole, so I could be off on what answer applies.

[whatsyourdeal]

oh yeah, OP, did you ever get a chance to ask your professor if the second question involved 90?

also, he's right about D for question #2. been awhile, but death excuses formation of Ks, and since she hadn't accepted the K by the time uncle moneybags kicked the bucket, K was not formed. i was thinking about death excusing performance of an already formed K, which it does not (i don't think).

He said for answer choice D, (the correct answer), an argument can be made for 90. He said he didnt like his wording for D but maintained it was the correct answer.

yeah, like we discussed, 90 was applicable to the situation, but not to the answer choices. since the uncle croaked, you could pursue 90 to get around formation of K.

and lol at your professor's answer, that's typical lawl skool professor response right there

[spartjdawg]

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!

I am going with C - there was no acceptance. The offeror is master of his offer. Wording is very important here. If the seller specifically said "by August 1, you must do X, Y, and Z" that is an offer for a unilateral contract THAT CAN ONLY BE ACCEPTED THROUGH PERFORMANCE. If the offeror predicates acceptance on X, Y, and Z, the other party can't say acceptance occurred by another method.

[spartjdawg]

I'll say B and B.

I don't think B falls under the "Unless" clause of 2-207, so "materially altering" the deal doesn't really matter. Gap-fillers are going to be used to determine the terms, and I'm going to guess the part about Article 2s gap-filler is adequate (haven't gone over the specific gap-fillers in my Ks class).

Second one seems similar, but I don't know about the implied warranty of merchantability as a whole, so I could be off on what answer applies.

2-207 Doesn't apply in sale of homes.

[First Offense]

I'll say B and B.

I don't think B falls under the "Unless" clause of 2-207, so "materially altering" the deal doesn't really matter. Gap-fillers are going to be used to determine the terms, and I'm going to guess the part about Article 2s gap-filler is adequate (haven't gone over the specific gap-fillers in my Ks class).

Second one seems similar, but I don't know about the implied warranty of merchantability as a whole, so I could be off on what answer applies.

2-207 Doesn't apply in sale of homes.

Oh snap. You right. Edit: Wait, what are you talking about. I'm answering the second set of questions.

[spartjdawg]

I'll say B and B.

I don't think B falls under the "Unless" clause of 2-207, so "materially altering" the deal doesn't really matter. Gap-fillers are going to be used to determine the terms, and I'm going to guess the part about Article 2s gap-filler is adequate (haven't gone over the specific gap-fillers in my Ks class).

Second one seems similar, but I don't know about the implied warranty of merchantability as a whole, so I could be off on what answer applies.

2-207 Doesn't apply in sale of homes.

Oh snap. You right. Edit: Wait, what are you talking about. I'm answering the second set of questions.

Assumed you were talking about the first question b/c in the previous post you had stated "Second one seems similar." In other words, by stating the second one, I thought the previous text was in regards to the first one. If there were two parts to the second question, your response would make sense, but I didn't read the second question so would not know.